Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation Poole Pract Act

http://www.developmentbookshelf.com/doi/book/10.3362/9781780449401 - Friday, December 01, 2017 1:35:47 PM - IP Address:98.22.180.
244
an d
Nigel Poole
Market Participation
Smallholder Agriculture
http://www.developmentbookshelf.com/doi/book/10.3362/9781780449401 - Friday, December 01, 2017 1:35:47 PM - IP Address:98.22.180.244
Smallholder Agriculture
and Market Participation
Praise for this book
Poole swims against the tide of meta-analysis, thematic review and non-
differentiation. In this new work he embraces Sens livelihoods entitlement

framework anew and re-affirms people as central to market inclusion.
Forstudents of the successes and failures of agricultural markets as a tool
to meet global development goals he provides cogent argument, up to date
references and important guidance for practice.
Ben Bennett, Deputy Director of the Natural Resources Institute and Professor of
International Trade and Marketing Economics at the University of Greenwich
Smallholder Agriculture and
Market Participation
Nigel Poole
Published by
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
and Practical Action Publishing 2017
Practical Action Publishing Ltd
The Schumacher Centre, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV23 9QZ, UK
www.practicalactionpublishing.org
FAO, 2017
The authors have asserted their rights under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be
identified as authors of this work. Such assertions shall not be construed as constituting a waiver of
the privileges or immunities of FAO.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be commercially reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the written permission
of the publishers.
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalogue record for this book has been requested from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-1-85339-941-1 Paperback
ISBN 978-1-85339-940-4 Hardback
ISBN 978-1-78044-941-8 ebook
ISBN 978-1-78044-940-1 Library pdf
Citation: Poole, N. (2017) Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation, Rugby, UK: Practical
Action Publishing, <http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401>
Since 1974, Practical Action Publishing has published and disseminated books andinformation in
support of international development work throughout the world. Practical Action Publishing is a
trading name of Practical Action Publishing Ltd (CompanyReg. No. 1159018), the wholly owned
publishing company of Practical Action. Practical Action Publishing trades only in support of its
parent charity objectives andany profits are covenanted back to Practical Action (Charity Reg.
No.247257, Group VAT Registration No.880 9924 76).
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product.
Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private
study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided
that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that
FAOs endorsement of users views, products or services isnot implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights
should be addressed to www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or to copyright@fao.org.
FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) andcan be
purchased through publications-sales@fao.org
FAO ISBN 978-92-5-109939-1
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention
of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does
not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar
nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO, or of Practical Action Publishing
Ltd or its parent charity Practical Action. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data
and information, but the authors and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all
materials or for the consequences of their use.
Cover design: Andrew Corbett

Cover photo shows small-scale cassava traders awaiting business in an urban market,
northernZambia. Credit: the author.
Typeset by vPrompt eServices, India
Printed in the United Kingdom by Short Run Press Ltd
Contents
About the author ix
Part I
The potential and challenges of smallholder agriculture 1
1. Introducing smallholder agriculture 3

The significance of smallholder agriculture 3
The contribution of agricultural development
to reducing hunger and poverty 8
Challenges in fostering agricultural entrepreneurship 12
Commercializing agriculture 16
The limitations of agricultural development for poverty reduction 25
A note on terminology 27
About the book 29
2. Policy approaches and theoretical considerations 35

Changing policies: from market systems to value chains 35
Theoretical approaches to households, markets,
and marketing for the poor 42
Transaction costs 45
Households and livelihoods 48
Value chain thinking 53
3. Financial services for agricultural smallholders 65

Background 65
Finance and transaction costs 68
Financial innovations for farming 73
4. Risk management for agricultural smallholders 81

Introduction 81
Assessing risk in rural value chains 83
Risk management 87
Agricultural insurance for agricultural development 97
Economic risk and types of value chains 101
Conclusions 110
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.000
vi Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation
Part II
Case studies of smallholder agriculture 115
5. Introduction to Part II: Assessing the impact of commodity

development projects on smallholder participation
in agricultural markets: Case studies from Ethiopia,
Peru, Tanzania, and Zambia 117
Introduction 117
Cases 118
Research approach and framework 121
Methodology 124
Summary of lessons learned 126
6. A diversification programme for vegetable exports

in Ethiopia 129
Project context 129
Findings 131
Conclusions 136
7. Production and commercialization of oilseeds in Peru 139

Project context 139
Findings 140
Conclusions 145
8. Sisal product and market development in Tanzania 149

Project context 149
Findings 150
Conclusions 154
9. Strengthening the productivity and competitiveness

of smallholder dairying in Zambia 157
Project design and implementation 157
Project context 157
Findings 159
Conclusions 162
10. Assessing the impact of projects on smallholder participation

in agricultural markets: Synthesis and conclusions 165
Recapitulating the theory of change: expected relationships 165
Lessons learned 166
Conclusions 178
vii
Contents
11. Postscript: Going local with development policies 183

Feeding the world 183
A macro perspective 185

A sectoral perspective 186
Policy interventions and tensions of scale: going micro 188
Index 193
About the author

Nigel Poole originally trained in natural sciences at the University of
Nottingham and in agricultural extension at the University of Reading, UK.
He began working in overseas agriculture in Swaziland and then moved to
Paraguay in South America for 11 years, where some of his best days were
spent being a cowboy. He returned to the UK and switched into socioeco-
nomics, studying for Masters and PhD degrees in agricultural economics at
Wye College, University of London.
Since 2007 he has worked in the Centre for Development, Environment
and Policy at SOAS, University of London, where he is Professor of
International Development. He has research experience in diverse countries
in Latin America, the Mediterranean Basin, Sub-Saharan Africa and South and
South-east Asia. His teaching is mainly in marketing, business and knowledge
management.
He is currently researching agrifood and nutrition value chain linkages
with the DFID-funded multi-institutional research programme Leveraging
Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA) covering Bangladesh, India,
Pakistan and Afghanistan (http://www.lansasouthasia.org/). He is leading the
Afghanistan Working Group and the agrifood-nutrition value chain studies in
the overall programme.
He is also Chairman of the Board of Directors, CATIE (Centro
Agronmico Tropical de Investigacin y Enseanza/Centre for Tropical
Agricultural Research and Teaching), Costa Rica. In his spare time, among
other things, he is Chairman of a small charity, the Wye and Brook
India Trust (registeredcharitynumber 288217), supporting schooling
in Delhi, India.
PART I
ofsmallholder agriculture
The potential and challenges
CHAPTER 1
Introducing smallholder agriculture

This introductory chapter discusses the importance of smallholder agriculture for
economic development, poverty reduction, and livelihood enhancement in developing
countries.
We note that agriculture is an occupation as well as an economic enterprise,
and that women are much involved throughout the developing world. Agriculture is
intimately linked with food security, health, and nutrition through direct consumption
and market linkages. Agriculture also affects other dimensions of development such
as environmental management and sustainability.
The participation of farmers in markets is an important determinant of
well-being and development. The chapter continues by analysing the opportunities
for, and weaknesses of, smallholders engaging in commercial agriculture, and how
the particular and local circumstances of such farmers mean that they cannot
be treated as a homogeneous group. It suggests that there are limits to policies
of social and economic inclusion as a means to overcome inequality, and notes
that agricultural development cannot solve all complex development problems.
Targeting development initiatives is therefore a challenge which is explored later
in the book.
The final section clarifies a variety of terms that are used to discuss development
issues and policy, and then explains the origin, context, and purpose of the book.
Keywords: smallholder farmers, agricultural development, poverty reduction,

market participation, policies, Sustainable Development Goals
The significance of smallholder agriculture

Agriculture is a major factor in sustainable global resource management
in termsof land, water, biodiversity, and emissions to land, water, and the
atmosphere. Agriculture is not just rural, but occurs on and within the
margins of urban areas and major cities. Production depends on resource-
intensive input supplies, and interfaces with other economic sectors such
as transport, energy, water, labour, and commodity markets through
processing, manufacturing, and distribution of products. The politics of
food is not just about fair prices for producers and consumers. Agriculture
is about international development and poverty reduction, and plays
a fundamental part in environmental management and in the human
causes of, and responses to, climate change. A glance at the Sustainable
Development Goals, adopted by the international community in 2015
and set as targets for 2030, will confirm that agriculture is linked to many
sectors within the development agenda.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.001
4 Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation
Smallholder agriculture is one of the principal economic occupations in

the world and is the main source of income and employment for the 70 per
cent of the worlds poor who live in rural areas. Smallholder households
account for 60 per cent of global agriculture. Many small-scale producers

are women with multiple responsibilities besides farming. Most farming
households produce a diverse range of farming products different crops
and livestock which fit into the home economy in different ways. They are
involved in other economic activities besides farming so that, despite its
significance, agriculture is just one of a number of diverse and competing
sources of livelihood support.
The latest World Bank report on enhancing global agribusiness opens with
the following statement:
Sustainable agricultural development is one of the most powerful

tools to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity. Agriculture
is the economic and social mainstay of some 500 million smallholder
farmers, and in developing countries, the sector is the largest source of
incomes, jobs and food security. Sustainable, inclusive growth in the
agriculture and food sectors creates jobs on farms, in markets, cities,
towns and villages, and throughout the farm-to-table food production
and consumption chain.
Seen against the backdrop of an increasing world population that is

expected to reach nine billion by 2050, rising food demand is estimated
to increase by at least 20% globally over the next 15 years with the largest
increases projected in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and East Asia.
Boosting the productivity, profitability and sustainability of agriculture
is essential for fighting hunger and poverty, tackling malnutrition and
boosting food security. In short, the world needs a food system that
can feed every person, every day, everywhere with a nutritious and
affordable diet, delivered in a climate-smart, sustainable way.
To achieve this goal, we need to be more productive and efficient in the

way we grow food, while building the resilience of both farmers and
food supply chains while simultaneously reducing the environmental
footprint of the agriculture and food sectors. This process requires
policies and regulations that foster growth in the agriculture and food
sectors, well-functioning markets, and thriving agribusinesses that make
more food available in rural and urban spaces (World Bank, 2017: v).
More than economics

Smallholder agriculture is more than an economic activity. For some, perhaps
for many, it is a way of life:
Agriculture in the Pacific is more than the occupation of the great

majority of people; it is their satisfaction, the means by which what
Introducing smallholder agriculture 5
Box 1.1 Smallholders and family farmers

Environment: Eighty per cent of the farmland in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia is managed
by smallholders (working on up to 10 hectares). While 75 per cent of the worlds food

is generated from only 12 plant and five animal species, making the global food system
highly vulnerable to shocks, biodiversity is key to smallholders whose systems keep many
rustic and climate-resilient varieties and breeds alive.
Economy: Out of the 2.5 billion people in poor countries living directly from the food
and agriculture sector, 1.5 billion people live in smallholder households. Many of those
households are extremely poor: overall, the highest incidence of workers living with their
families below the poverty line is associated with employment in agriculture.
Social: Women comprise an average of 43 per cent of the agricultural labour force of
developing countries up to almost 50 per cent in East and Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan
Africa. Should women farmers have the same access to productive resources as men, they
could increase yields on their farms by 2030 per cent, lifting 100150 million people
out of hunger. Women are the quiet drivers of change towards more sustainable production
systems and a more varied and healthier diet.
Governance: Smallholders provide up to 80 per cent of the food supply in Asia and
sub-Saharan Africa. Their economic viability and contribution to diversified landscape
and culture are threatened by competitive pressure from globalization and integration
into common economic areas; their fate is either to disappear and become purely
self-subsistence producers, or to grow into larger units that can compete with large,
industrialized farms.
Source: summarized from FAO (2012).
survives of tradition is largely expressed and maintained, and the

channel of individual creativity and enterprise within traditionally close
confines of the extended family and community (Barry Weightman,
1989, quoted in Rogers et al., 2010: 2).
Box 1.1 explores some dimensions of the type of farming we are considering.
Smallholder agriculture is most important of all for its contribution to the
food security, nutrition, and health of many poor people:
Small-scale agriculture is the main source of food in the developing
world, producing up to 80 percent of the food consumed in many
developing countries, notably in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. With poor
rural households making up two-thirds of the global population earning
less than $1.25 per day, smallholder agriculture is also an important
source of income underpinning the livelihoods of vast numbers of poor
people. Smallholders and small family farms are therefore central to an
inclusive development process and their contribution is crucial to food
security (Arias et al., 2013: 6).
The significance of agriculture and the rural economy to poverty reduction
can be illustrated with statistics from the World Banks World Development
Indicators. In developing countries and regions, the rural population is
relatively high, and agriculture accounts for a relatively large but declining
Table 1.1 Rural indicators major regions of the world

Rural population Agriculture
% of total growth Annual % growth % of GDP

2000 2014 2014 2000 2014
World 53 47 0.2 5 4
East Asia and Pacific 59 44 1.4 8 5
Europe and Central Asia 32 29 0.2 3 2
Latin America and Caribbean 25 20 0.3 6 5
Middle East and North Africa 41 36 1 9 6
North America 21 19 0.1 1 1
South Asia 73 67 0.7 23 18
Sub-Saharan Africa 69 63 1.9 20 17
Low income 75 70 2.2 34 31
Lower middle income 67 61 0.7 22 16
Upper middle income 50 37 1.5 10 7
High income 23 19 0.7 2 1
Source: World Bank (2016)
proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). Food production has increased

significantly in some regions in the last decade, but not equally in all, and
further increases are necessary considering likely population growth rates,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural productivity in developing
regions has risen during the period 20002014, but is still much lower than in
more developed regions (Table 1.1 and Table 1.2).
At the same time, smallholder agriculture has many defining characte
ristics and faces many obstacles in reaching its potential contribution to
development and poverty reduction. This volume focuses on mechanisms for
enhancing economic access to markets:
Smallholder agriculture is characterized by small production volumes

of variable quality that reflect limited access to inputs and finance, low
levels of investment and limited access to, and knowledge of, improved
agricultural technologies and practices. High levels of price and
production risk and uncertainty and limited access to tools to manage
them deter investment in more productive new technologies that would
enable smallholders to produce surpluses for sale in markets. Inadequate
infrastructure, high costs of storage and transportation and non-compet-
itive markets also militate against production of a marketable surplus
(Arias et al., 2013: 6).
While the economic output of many countries in developing regions is

highly agricultural, the health and nutrition indicators for some of these
countries are among the poorest in the world; sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asia are the regions with the most significant deprivation. Were the data in
Table 1.2 Food production and productivity indicators major regions of the world
Food production index Agricultural productivity
20042006 = 100 Agricultural value added

per worker
2000 2013 2000 2014
World 88.6 123 1,562 2,161
East Asia and Pacific 84.8 127.7 1,095 1,738
Europe and Central Asia 96.5 110.5 8,709 14,026
Latin America and Caribbean 83.0 128.5 4,627 7,007
Middle East and North Africa 81.6 117.3 4,067 6,194
North America 95.5 113.5 44,132 78,230
South Asia 90.9 132.3 848 1,087
Sub-Saharan Africa 82.4 129.6 771 1,207
Low income 83.2 133.4 396 510
Lower middle income 85.6 130.7 1,075 1,577
Upper middle income 84.0 84.0 128 1,314
High income 98.5 107.7 22,075 38,321
Source: World Bank (2016)
Table 1.3 to be disaggregated by age and gender, the under-fives and adolescent
girls would register significantly.
Digging a little deeper into the data in Table 1.3, it is evident that the
Oceania region including many Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
registers high levels of stunting among children, comparable to the levels
in Africa. It is more surprising to observe the high rates of adult obesity in
the Caribbean and Oceania, which encompass most of the SIDS. These are
comparable to the levels of obesity in many wealthy countries in developed
regions of the world. These data illustrate the phenomenon of the double-
burden of malnutrition, which is under- and over-nutrition. The co-existence
of stunting, micronutrient deficiencies, and adult obesity creates major
challenges for local and global food systems. The linkages between agriculture
and nutrition are currently high on the international research agenda: for
example, in the UK Government-funded research programme Leveraging
Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA, undated). Recent publica-
tions taking a value perspective on the linkages are Devaux et al. (2016) and
Maestre et al. (2017).
Because of its contribution to food supplies and nutrition, smallholder
agriculture is also an important factor supporting social and political stability.
For example, high onion prices in India in 1998 led to the fall of the BJP
government, and continue to act as a bellwether of political tension. Rising
food prices are implicated, among other factors, in fomenting the Arab Spring
(Breisinger et al., 2012). In all countries, food price rises make a significant
contribution to the rate of inflation, to which poor people are most sensitive.
Table 1.3Nutrition-related health indicators major regions of the world

Prevalence of Prevalence of micronutrient Prevalence
stunting among deficiencies and anaemia among of obesity
children (%) children (%) among adults

Anaemia Vitamin A Iodine (%)
deficiency deficiency
Most recent Most recent observation 2008
observation
World 25.7 47.9 30.7 30.3 11.7
Countries in 7.2 11.8 3.9 37.7 22.2
developed regions
Countries in 28.0 52.4 34.0 29.6 8.7
developing regions
Africa 35.6 64.6 41.9 38.2 11.3
Southern Asia 45.5 66.5 50.0 36.6 3.2
Caribbean 6.7 41.3 17.8 59.8 20.3
Oceania ex 35.5 53.8 11.6 31.8 22.4
Australia/New
Zealand
Source: FAO (2013: Annex 1)
The contribution of agricultural development to reducing

hungerandpoverty
Development goals
Since 2000, the international commitment to agricultural development has
been tackled within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), the high level objectives with targets and indicators which ran up
to 2015. Agricultural development is a strategy which is usually considered to
have addressed MDG 1, that is, the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger.
Through increasing rural incomes, agricultural development has contributed,
between the years 1990 and 2015, towards halving the proportion of people
whose income is less than one dollar a day.
By increasing opportunities, agricultural development can also help to
achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including
women and young people; and through boosting income, employment, and
food production and lowering prices, agricultural development can help to
halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. These multiplier
effects of agricultural development are well understood. Indeed, agricultural
development has conceivably helped to address, inter alia, reductions in child
mortality, improving maternal health, and combatting HIV/AIDS, malaria,
and other diseases.
The framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) makes
reference to more precise goals and indicators relating to equity, gender,
andsustainability issues (see UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform;

UN-DESA, undated). We can still expect that agricultural development critical
to many of the worlds poorest people will have a major contribution to the
new SDG era.

Poverty is not just rural, nor is development just economic, nor do inter-
national goals encapsulate all the desirable objectives for global society.
Economic incentives, new knowledge about the world, and new technical
skills, to name just three external influences, act upon individuals,
households, and communities to change culture and values in various ways.
It is obvious that other approaches and mechanisms, as well as appropriate
agricultural development policies, are required to meet the SDGs: agricul-
tural development may be necessary for achieving each objective, but it is
certainly not sufficient.
The new SDGs are integrated and synergistic and perhaps antagonistic:
handling the trade-offs between agriculture, economic development, and
environmental management, for example, will be challenging (Waage
and Yap, 2015). Exploiting potential synergies is a positive approach to
addressing the goals. Given its importance to the rural economy, where
many poor people are located, agriculture can be expected to contribute
directly to SDGs 1 and 2:
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture.
Interrelationships between goals

There are potential conflicts and trade-offs between goals, but smallholder
agriculture can also address issues of equity, inclusion, gender and
empowerment, health, employment, natural resources management, climate
change, and sustainability. Figure 1.1 depicts all 17 SDGs, highlighting in the
centre those on which agriculture has an immediate bearing. In the second
ring are those on which agriculture can plausibly have a less direct but
important impact.
Many development challenges are multifaceted, wicked problems that
are difficult to resolve because of inadequate information and knowledge,
multiple and contradictory opinions, perceived high costs, and complexity.
Recent research among policy stakeholders in Afghanistan shows how agricul-
tural and other sector policies can be poorly designed and integrated (Poole
et al., 2016b):
Major barriers remain to leveraging agriculture for nutrition. These are

not confined to the specific sectors but are symptomatic of Afghanistans
broader development challenges. Extreme dependence on external
human and financial resources shapes policy and practice according
to international expectations, but fails to deliver efficient and effective
17. Strengthen global partnership

16. Promote peaceful for sustainable development
and inclusive 4. Ensure education
societies, justice,
5. Achieve gender
accountability
15. Protect, restore, and equality
8. Promote
promote sustainable use of 6. Ensure
economic growth,
terrestrial ecosystems water and
employment
sanitation
1. End poverty
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition, promote sustainable agriculture
3. Ensure healthy lives
13. Combat climate 10. Reduce inequality

change and its 7. Ensure
impacts 12. Sustainable access to
14. Conserve and consumption and energy
sustainably use production 9. Build
the oceans, seas, infrastructure,
and marine 11. Make cities and
promote
resources human settlements
industrialization,
inclusive, safe,
innovation
resilient, and
sustainable
Figure 1.1 Agriculture and the Sustainable Development Goals
Source: adapted from Waage and Yap (2015)
processes and outcomes. In particular, we find that lack of capacity and

resources within government Ministries and Departments along with
poor infrastructure and huge security concerns remain major barriers to
progress (Poole et al., 2016b: 88).
The complexity of wicked inter- or multi-sectoral problems can be

illustrated by examining Figure 1.2, which is a representation, by no means
comprehensive, of the interrelationships between primary agricultural
production and other sectors. It captures both the upstream functions of
the agricultural supply industry and the ecological functions of the natural
environment, and a range of factors which affect the downstream value
chain functions, right down to the consumption and health impact of
agri-food products (Maestre et al., 2017). Here the focus is on food and
health, and the factors are located approximately according to their
position in the chain. Non-food agricultural products would constitute a
branch into other industries, such as bioenergy but are too difficult to
depict in the same diagram.
But this does not mean that nothing can be done. We know that inherent
in development are processes whereby natural, human, and economic

Breeding and Market access Intra-household
varietal development distribution
Husbandry Marketing Nutrient composition Non-communicable

techniques diseases
Food standards Incomes Infections

Land and water use
Peri-harvest Transport and Micronutrient
Seasonality losses Food hygiene deficiencies
distribution
Agricultural Manufacturing, Food Health

production processing, retail consumption consequences
Soils Labour Assembly and Cooking Development

Labour Prices
transport processes potential
Climate change and
carbon emissions Storage Consumer Stunting and wasting
preferences
Seeds, veterinary and Bio-fortification and
agrochemical inputs nutraceuticals Potable water
Food waste
Training and New product

Introducing smallholder agriculture
extension development Seasonality Education

11
Figure 1.2 The agri-health value chain and contextual factors

Source: adapted from Waage et al. (2011)
Box 1.2 Livelihoods and ecology in the Sahel region of West Africa
A survey approach was used to examine the contribution to rural livelihoods in Burkina
Faso of major tree products, derived from baobab (Adansonia digitata), shea (Vitellaria
paradoxa) and nr (Parkia biglobosa). While home-produced cereals constitute the major
part of the peoples diets, tree products make a significant contribution to food security
during the dry soudure season when cereal granaries are empty and the new harvest is
pending. Tree products also served as a mechanism for managing household strategies for
exchange of goods, marketing of products, and managing food consumption through the
seasons. Understanding of the agroecological importance of trees and tree management
was reinforced.
Households were not all the same: rural heterogeneity down to intra-household level is
an important feature of tree product utilization, with variations in tree management and
product utilization depending on human and economic relationships as well as natural
resource endowments.
The complexity of and variation in human relationships was evident at multiple levels
of the Burkinab society: at the community level, where local authorities exercise a degree
of control over natural resources; within the typical compound of households; among men
and women and children within and between the constituent households.
One of the principal implications of this research for enhancing the contribution of trees
to sustainable livelihoods in the Sahel is that conservation and enhancement initiatives
must be tailored to the local context. Implementation must be negotiated according to the
important agroecological, human, and tree specificities, land tenure and fragmentation,
particularly in the more fragile northern part of the country, and, at the same time, address
the gender and age roles of different householders and authority figures, thus exploiting
the potential for sustainable enterprise and greater productivity.
Source: adapted from Poole et al. (2016a)
resources grow and are reallocated among livelihood activities within peoples
households. Recent research in West Africa has emphasized how the people
of the Sahel and their skills are a resource that can be used to manage the
competing claims of sustainable management of a fragile environment and
secure rural livelihoods (Box 1.2).
The changes accompanying these processes involve shifts between
productive sectors and spatial contexts, driven by the initiatives of entre-
preneurs, augmented by external support, and facilitated by incentives from
an external environment which is conducive to productive investment and
returns. Within this broad context, both theory and practice are persuasive
about the role of increasing rural peoples access to remunerative markets for
their products as a mechanism of agricultural development.
Challenges in fostering agricultural entrepreneurship

We have seen that agricultural development and entrepreneurship are key
processes for improving the livelihoods of poor people, for wider economic
development, and also make sense for ensuring food security. The thesis or
theory of change is that the commercialization of smallholder agriculture
is likely to stimulate primary production and thereby increase household
and food security (at a local and regional scale), for increasing incomes of
farmers and employees, for enabling and stimulating the supply of agricul-
tural services and goods to rural areas, and for the secondary (agro-industrial)
and tertiary (services) economic sectors. Moreover, social and environmental

objectives can be met by promoting smallholder agriculture as part of a global
food system that does not depend entirely on intensive agriculture.
Targeting development support

The fact that the global population of smallholder farmers is characterized
by heterogeneity will lead to further differentiation and specialization
in rural communities. Thus, not all smallholders will be able or willing to
participate or benefit directly from the opportunities and processes of agricul-
tural development. Targeting support will create opportunities and foster
the inclusion of resource-poor people, but unequal starting points, such
asthe level of asset endowments for agricultural entrepreneurship, give rise
to the evolving differences. The vulnerability and inequality of the most
resource-poor people have to be handled by transfers and safety nets, plus
other targeted opportunity-enhancing approaches. For example, appropriate
education opens a pathway into higher-value employment in an inclusive
local economy.
Both push and pull factors are at work in altering the rural population
structure in developing economies. Migration from rural to urban areas
and overseas is accelerating processes of feminization and ageing in the
agriculturally active population that is also impacted by the prevalence of
HIV/AIDS and other persistent and destructive phenomena. Remittances
have become exceedingly important and constitute a major and irreplaceable
flow of resources approaching $500 bn per annum (Sutherland, 2013), with
around 250 million migrants financially supporting 1 billion people in their
countries of origin. Nevertheless, there is an employment myth which
means that expectations of migrants are often frustrated by lack of opportu-
nities in destination markets. At the same time, alternative local economic
development and food production can be hit as human capital becomes
stretched and climate change requires innovative responses to sustain and
increase agricultural productivity.
Changing contexts
Two recent international reports highlight the immediate and longer-term
challenges. Rural Development Report 2016: Fostering Inclusive Rural
Transformation by the United Nations International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) draws attention to the rapidly changing global context:
the global economy, rates of urbanization and increasing food demand,
climate change, erratic energy supplies, conflict, and increasing inequality
(IFAD, 2016).
Box 1.3 Employment potential of agriculture

Employment creation in the formal sector falls far below the level required to absorb
new market entrants. Moreover, most new entrants lack the skills they need to enter
firms operating at higher levels of productivity and wages. As a result, the overwhelming
majority of young people are destined for employment on farms, rural enterprises or in
the informal sector
Successful adaptation by smallholder farmers could dramatically reduce the risks
posed by climate change. Innovations in water management and irrigation, drought-
resistant seed strains, soil conservation, and new tillage and climate-resilient cropping
patterns could all make a difference. Africas farmers need help from their governments
and the international community in scaling up adaptation
Unlocking the productive potential of Africas farmers would strengthen economic
recovery. It would raise incomes, create jobs, create new markets, open new opportunities
for investment, and link the farm and the rural non-farm economy with other growth
centres.
Source: Africa Progress Panel (2012)
Likewise, the report of the United Nations Food and Agricultural

Organization (FAO) State of Food and Agriculture 2016: Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security highlights the urgency of responding to the
challenges affecting agriculture and food production:
Unless action is taken now to make agriculture more sustainable,

productive and resilient, climate change impacts will seriously
compromise food production in countries and regions that are already
highly food-insecure. These impacts will jeopardize progress towards the
key Sustainable Development Goals of ending hunger and poverty by
2030; beyond 2030, their increasingly negative impacts on agriculture
will be widespread (FAO, 2016: v).
Strategies for prioritizing food security and environmental conservation

may include maintaining the dwindling rural labour force and stimulating
agriculture by providing production subsidies and investments in rural infra-
structure. While many rural people want to move to the cities, it may be not
possible for them all to do so. Prioritizing investment in the rural economy,
therefore, is part of the solution to rural, urban, food, and employment
problems (Box 1.3).
A people perspective
A particular challenge in many contexts is to engage a new generation of
people in agriculture. In Samoa, for example, farming is said to be among the
least valuable of the employment or career opportunities for a young villager,
coming behind migration, trade, and fishing (Angelucci et al., undated).
Theage profile of smallholder farmers is steadily rising in many countries and
regions because young people are leaving rural areas to seek opportunities
elsewhere. Farming can become an attractive profession if smallholder farms
can be transformed into modern businesses. For this, at least three things are
needed (IFAD, 2011: 5):
investment in social and economic infrastructure;

remunerative economic opportunities for young people; and
opportunities and appropriate skills development.
While migration does present attractive new opportunities to people with

qualifications, integration into a vibrant rural economy can offer higher
returns through agriculture and rural business. The demand for added-value
agri-food products sourced from dynamic, innovative, and modern businesses
within a profitable agricultural base will persist, and appropriate investments
will be necessary. Human resources are critical: educational policies must be
tailored to local needs with the intention of re-skilling a younger generation
to overcome the barriers to local development and enabling the exploitation
of new opportunities (Poole et al., 2013a).
Karembu (2013) goes further, arguing that high-technology agriculture
and sophisticated skills are necessary for the development of Africa. She is
concerned about increasing food demand: where the food will come from,
how it will be produced, and who will produce it. The required productivity
increases will depend on modern, scientifically based agricultural technol-
ogies. Yet outmigration of young people has left rural food production as
theresponsibility of an older generation who lack the technical and other
capitals to innovate, adopt, and adapt to modern farming and market systems.
She ponders likewise how young people can be attracted into farming given
the prevailing view of agriculture as a painful and low-end labour market.
Canfarming become pleasurable and profitable with supportive infrastructure
to make it exciting, worthwhile and recognised as an important contribution
to modern society?
In conclusion, she argues:
Agriculturalists agree that the long-term sustainability of existing

food production systems will largely depend on appropriate uptake
and application of modern science and technologies. Education,
empowerment and motivation of young people to take up agricul-
tural activities are a prerequisite for improved and sustainable food
production in Africa given their big numbers With better oppor-
tunities for access to technologies, entrepreneurial skills and social
marketing, young people could funnel their youthful idealism, energy
and determination into a positive force for change within the agricul-
tural sector. This would ultimately result in sustainable production
of the food required to support the growing population in Africa
(Karembu, 2013: 97).
Commercializing agriculture
Understanding smallholder market participation
Pure subsistence is very rare, and cash needs for household expenditures
are an almost universal reality. Diversification in patterns of economic
production and capital accumulation are fundamental livelihood strategies
for economic well-being. Thus, almost all people, including smallholder
farmers and the poorest, are linked to markets in the wider non-agricultural
economy. In the first instance, these are markets for consumer goods,
including food. In rural areas, many farmers will source agricultural inputs
such as seeds, implements, and fertilizers from local suppliers, or rent other
agricultural services. Many people in rural contexts are also linked to labour
markets. At the very least, some members of farming households often work
as farm labourers or in secondary enterprises, or migrate out of rural areas to
urban areas or further afield.
A decade ago, the World Banks Development Report on agriculture set the
agenda for commercialization and explored opportunities and weaknesses in
the smallholder context (World Bank, 2007). National governments, inter-
national donors, and non-governmental organizations have adopted the
commercialization narrative. Typical of public statements is the following:
The official policy statements of many national governments in the

Pacific accord a central role to the intensification and commercialization
of smallholder agriculture as a means of stimulating the rural economy
and alleviating poverty. Axiomatic to this stance is the belief that
smallholder agriculture is uniquely positioned to deliver broad-based
growth in rural areas (Rogers et al., 2010: 6).
Smallholder farmers contribute to agricultural exports of many high-value

fruit and vegetable products, although large-scale agriculture dominates
these markets. Smallholders contribute especially to the beverages sector:
smallholder tea, coffee, and cocoa farmers are often linked closely to local
agribusinesses and international trade. Incomes from such sources are critical
for current household expenditures, while larger sums such as those from
overseas remittances can contribute to capital investment. However, for
staples and many other commodities, outside local markets, it is usually the
better-off smallholders who are net sellers of agricultural produce.
Most smallholder sellers of agricultural products are in fact net buyers,
because productive resources are limited and productivity is low. There is
no doubt that smallholder agricultural productivity can increase, and has to
increase, to enhance farmers livelihoods and to meet increasing demands for
food security. But the effectiveness of incentives and distribution of benefits
from investment in new research and technology will be much attenuated if
the market linkages are not improved at the same time: Raising smallholder
productivity is obviously a strategic necessity, but attempts to raise productivity
will have limited success if smallholder linkages to markets are not strengthened
simultaneously. Similarly, strengthening market linkages will have little benefit

with existing low levels of productivity (Arias et al., 2013: 6).
According to Wiggins and Keats (2013), the contribution of smallholder
agriculture to reducing poverty and hunger in low-income countries depends on

sustainable access to markets. The primary focus of terms such as market partici-
pation and economic inclusion is to consider the multiple ways and the extent
to which smallholder farmers are able to sell their output to buyers who may
be itinerant assemblers and traders, agents for larger-scale procurement systems,
traders in markets or direct consumers. Other markets besides product markets
must also be considered as integral elements in local production systems:
Increased market participation implies the transition from subsistence

farming to a market engagement mode, whereby frequent use of markets
is made for the purpose of exchanging products and services. Markets refer
to both input markets for the exchange of factors of production and output
markets for the exchange of agricultural products (Amrouk et al., 2013: 6).
Box 1.4 explores what market participation can mean.
Box 1.4 What do we mean by market participation?

Market participation is the ability of an entity to participate in a market efficiently and
effectively. For our purposes it implies the transition by farmers from subsistence farming
to a market engagement mode, whereby inputs are increasingly purchased and outputs
sold off the farm to traders. It is a process as well as an outcome. The transition from
subsistence, or from a lower to a higher level of market participation, is influenced by
the ability of farmers to produce products which meet market expectations in terms of
quality, standards, supply consistency, and ability to deliver products on time for sale at
a viable price.
Most smallholder farmer market participation in developing countries is limited owing
to factors which are both internal to the farmer or household, and external, from the
surrounding environment. The internal factors are barriers which relate to the failure by
farmers to meet market expectations due to lack of physical and financial assets, such as
land and credit, and human assets such as skills, commercial contacts and labour, and
even time. Smallholder farmers also frequently lack commercial information; physical
infrastructure is poor causing high transaction costs; remoteness increases costs and
reduces competition; and without adequate institutions there are difficulties in contract
enforcement.
For smallholder farmers to fully participate in markets they must also be able to meet
both observable and unobservable transaction costs. The former group is made up of
marketing costs such as transport, handling, packaging, and storage. The latter transaction
costs include cost of information search, bargaining, screening, monitoring, coordination,
and contract enforcement. Uncertainty about these raises the risks to farmers, which have
to be managed. Or they are avoided by opting out of markets.
Constraints that limit market participation by smallholder farmers include supply-side
constraints (especially those at the farm level that limit sufficient and reliable flow of
products), demand-side constraints that limit the growth of local consumption of agricul-
tural products, and markets and marketing institutions that are not well linked to serve
farmers, especially in rural areas.
Source: author
Linking farmers to markets is necessary, therefore, although there are

debates about which markets are most appropriate and viable for small farmers
to engage with, and how formal institutions can be structured to benefit
the least powerful participants. The Via Campesina movement represents

at least 200million farmers and rural workers, plus a range of organiza-
tions and indigenous groups, worldwide (Rosset and Martnez-Torres, 2012).
ViaCampesina by no means recommends polices of autarky (subsistence
outside commercial market exchange systems) but acknowledges the potential
for smallholders to improve their well-being, food security, and self-esteem,
and to forge an adequate livelihood, by engaging in local markets and avoiding
engagement in oligopolistic global markets. Food sovereignty is a development
approach that aspires to equitable market participation by smallholders in the
development of local food systems (Poole et al., 2013b).
It will help development strategies if we know the way and the extent to
which farmers are linked to markets. Indicators of smallholder participation
in output marketing would be:
changes in producer/beneficiary incomes;

changes in the distribution of income, for example between men and
women;
changes in total volume of product sales;
proportion of product sales through new market outlets, compared with
sales through traditional or alternative outlets;
product prices received through new market outlets, compared with
traditional outlets;
proportion and levels of income from new economic activities, compared
with traditional activities.
The availability of such data on most rural economies is limited or non-existent:
Ideally there would be statistics on degrees of commercialisation and

average farm incomes by household, with similar statistics on other deter-
minants of income However, no such comprehensive data sets exist,
although some household surveys and other observations through time
give indications of the relationships (Wiggins and Keats, 2013: 12).
What data are available will be related to the monitoring and evaluation
activities of specific interventions and are generally not easy to find.
Monitoring markets reveals important dynamic patterns in production
and consumption. For example, diets in many countries are shifting towards
higher-value livestock products, fruits, and vegetables. Specific foods are
often perceived to have significant health or other prized attributes. As some
people grow in wealth and learn about nutrition and new products, demand
expands and prices rise, offering new supply opportunities to farmers for
commercial sales. At the same time, food is diverted from poorer consumers
and poorer rural people who are net consumers who can no longer afford
the product. Rural people who cannot produce enough food for their own
Box 1.5 Market dynamics and new opportunities: The case of Ethiopia
Ethiopiais one of the worlds poorest countries, well-known for its precariousfoodsecurity
situation. But it is also the native home of teff, a highly nutritious ancient grain increas-
ingly finding its way into health-food shops and supermarkets in Europe and America.
Grown by an estimated6.3 million farmers, fields of the crop cover more than 20%
of all land under cultivation As Western consumers acquire a taste for teff, how to
ensure that Ethiopia and its farmers benefit from new global markets is a critical question.
Growing demand for so-called ancient grains has not always been a straightforward win for
poor communities. InBolivia and Peru, reports of rising incomes owing to the now-global
quinoa trade have come alongside those of malnutritionand conflicts over land as farmers
sell their entire crop to meet western demand.
Ethiopias growing middle class is also pushing up demand for teff,and rising domestic
pricesover the past decade have put the grain out of reach of the poorest. Today, most
small farmers sell the bulk of what they grow to consumers in the city.
This may have helped boost incomes in some rural areas but it has had nutritional
consequences, says the government, as teffis the most nutritionally valuable grain in the
country. Estimates suggest that while those in urban areas eat up to61 kg of teff a year,
in rural areas, the figure is 20 kg. The type consumed differs too: the wealthy almost
exclusively eat the more expensive magna and white teff varieties; less well-off consumers
tend to eat less-valuable red and mixed teff, and more than half combine it with cheaper
cereals such as sorghum and maize.
The governments agricultural transformation agency aims to boost yields by developing
improved varieties of the grain, along with new planting techniques and tools to reduce
post-harvest losses.
David Hallam, former Director of the Trade and Markets Division at the UNs Food
and Agriculture Organization, says that while there is money to be made from new global
markets for traditional crops, governments have to support small-scale producers to ensure
they share the benefits of increased trade.
Typically, these products are going to go through many hands before they reach the
shelves of Sainsburys or wherever. There are [profit] margins at every step, and small
farmers are not necessarily well placed to bargain with the bigger traders, says Hallam,
who sees quinoas popularity as a cautionary tale of how export opportunities can be a
mixed blessing for poor countries.
Regassa Feyissa, an Ethiopian agricultural scientist and former head of the national
Institute for Biodiversity, warns that without careful planning, increased teff production
for export may displace other important crops for farmers. And efforts to boost production
could benefit business interests at the expense of small farmers.
Source: Provost and Jobson (2014)
subsistence and can no longer afford to buy may have to leave the land,
and farming becomes consolidated among less numerous but larger-scale
producers.
Teff (or tef), the staple grain of Ethiopia, is one such health food. A report
by Minten et al. (2013) comments on the changing market characteristics in
Ethiopia. Interventions in such situations can boost the rural economy, and
sometimes even support the struggling smaller farmers. Theauthors outline
ways in which to boost the potential for the teff economy by improving
inputs, technology, and product marketing. Box 1.5 summarizes the new
opportunities in such agricultural markets.
Engagement in dynamic markets is a necessary step for many smallholder

farmers. The value chain concept developed by Kaplinsky and Morris (2002),
among others, describes the sorts of opportunities and processes of which
commercializing farmers can take advantage, referring to different types of

product and market innovation that can lead to upgrading:
Process upgrading. Increasing the efficiency of internal processes within

and between individual links.
Product upgrading. Improving old products or introducing new products
through individual strategies or through interfirm processes.
Functional upgrading. Adding value by changing the mix of activities and
by assuming new functional roles and responsibilities.
Chain upgrading. Investment in new but related enterprises, or diversifi-
cation into unrelated enterprises.
Market access and constraints

Much research has been conducted on the attributes of smallholder farmers
and the conditions required to enable smallholders to upgrade and diversify
their productive activities and link with markets. Amrouk et al. (2013)
consider that there are three sets of factors which condition smallholder
market access:
Farm and farmer characteristics. The level of education and resource

endowments, the level of technology, land size, and quality, and the
stock of other productive assets. They also include household structure,
consumption needs, and risks faced, which make up the vulnerability
context.
External factors. For example, the prevailing physical and institutional
infrastructure such as roads, electricity, communications, market, and
rules of law, which drive price incentives and the decision to invest in
technology and generate surpluses.
Macro and sectoral policies. Policies affect market access through their
impact on prices and trade incentives.
A wide range of factors affects the extent to which smallholder farmers can
integrate production with commercial markets, as can be seen in Box 1.6.
Household heterogeneity
Due recognition has recently been given to the differences between households,
and warning against development approaches that fail to differentiate
adequately between different household types. The World Banks adoption
of a commercialization narrative for smallholder agriculture in Africa has a
big picture approach to rural policy formulation. This tends to gloss over
inter-household heterogeneity, to say nothing of intra-household heteroge-
neity, that is, the differences within households among men and women,
Box 1.6 Factors affecting smallholder market participation

Not all farmers can take advantage of market developments. Smallholder farmers access
to evolving agricultural markets especially to value chains is commonly constrained by

diverse factors:
Smallholders face high costs due to geographic barriers such as remoteness or

biophysical limits to productivity (e.g. water availability).
They have limited productive asset holdings of land, livestock, labour, critical
equipment which may constrain the scale of production and limit the marketable
surplus.
There are complex and variable institutional arrangements including conditions
of contracts, product grades and standards, certification, and access to credit,
insurance, and technical information through extension services and collaborative
initiatives.
Traders tend to work with a limited number of larger preferred suppliers who are able
to guarantee a large and continuous supply of produce and more easily meet market
specifications.
Smallholders have a propensity to avoid risk:
Risks result from adverse weather, pests and diseases, volatile prices, volatile
policy environments, which are disproportionately high due to difficulties faced in
accessing market information, credit and other inputs, and technical assistance,
depending on contractual arrangements and whether they participate in formal or
informal markets.
Higher-value markets can be subject to boom-bust cycles that swallow sunk costs
and investments.
Credit provision generates cash flow risks.
The adoption of complex technology generates risks associated with production and
therefore delivery.
Contractual arrangements generate risk of malfeasance (criminal behaviour).
Source: summarized from Arias et al. (2013: 212)
old and young, high and low status. Rural heterogeneity is understood best
within the small picture of rural household characteristics (Poole et al.,
2013b). Theimportance of analysing the small picture detail, disaggregation,
contextual locality, and particularity is highlighted by Poole et al.
In its seminal World Development Report (WDR) on agriculture, the World
Bank noted that heterogeneity defines the rural world (World Bank, 2007: 5).
Box 1.7 contests this view.
It is not a new thing to stress the importance of disaggregating the
differentcharacteristics of large populations and recognizing diversity.
Barrett (2008) comments on diversity in African smallholder agriculture.
As already noted, most smallholder farm production is for subsistence, but
even households which sell staple grains typically soon after harvest are
net consumers over the year, relying on income from the sale of cash crops
or labour. Nevertheless, there is considerable differentiation and inequality
among smallholder farmers. It is common for there to be a high level of seller
concentration in staple-food product markets which tend to be dominated by
the farmers who are better-endowed in terms of productive assets, technology,
Box 1.7 How much differentiation?

the level of differentiation in the WDR and in the mainstream literature is both
limited and reductionist. It glosses over the development losers, whose limited assets
and capabilities consign them to exit from agriculture and often from rural life into
probably the lowest echelons of an urban-industrial society. Exit from agriculture
can mean unemployment, social disruption, and urban deprivation within a context of
burgeoning populations, climate change, and resource scarcities.
Thus, the levels of differentiation commonly used are not very local or particular,
reflecting the methodologies of meta-analytical approaches and the growing influence
of thematic reviews. They do not get deep into the hearts and minds of rural household
members. Differentiation and customization are conceived only within the overarching
imperative of commercializing agriculture.
Source: Poole et al. (2013b)
and geographic location. Barretts review showed that access to financial

services is also associated with the level of market sales: use of credit and
insurance is strongly and positively associated with wealth. This may be because
liquidity permits households to invest in higher-yielding, longer cycle crops,
in seasonal inputs that boost yields, and in improved production techno
logies that require some initial sunk costs [there appear to be] multiple
pathways through which private wealth affects market participation
(Barrett, 2008: 310).
Drawing on Barretts work, Arias et al. (2013: 1011) likewise emphasize
the heterogeneous nature of households and transaction character-
istics under three headings of household assets, market connectivity, and
functionality. Smallholder farmers and their contexts differ according to the
following:
The smallholder households access to, and the productivity of, assets,
including natural resources, labour, and capital, vis--vis their subsistence
needs will determine both their ability and their willingness to increase
production for sale in markets.
The connectivity of smallholders to different markets, which can
be considered in terms of remoteness (defined broadly to include
geographical proximity, knowledge asymmetries, power relationships,
and the costs of commerce, or transaction costs), will modify the
incentives that they receive.
The functionality of these markets. Many local food markets are volatile
because of the low volumes transacted and their limited integration
with regional or international markets, which limits the markets ability
to modify demand- and/or supply-side shocks. Volatility can affect the
level and riskiness of returns to the producer. Where markets are not
well integrated, returns to increased output can diminish quickly as
prices plummet, significantly affecting incentives for market partici-
pation and, consequently, for productivity-enhancing technology
adoption.
Following Sens articulation of entitlements, freedoms, and capabilities

(Sen, 1981), the livelihood capitals framework focuses attention on human
capacities and constraints, and on exploring smallholder heterogeneity. There
is much more to be drawn from the literature on livelihoods and market

participation, which will follow in Chapter 2.
Inequality and opportunity: market exclusion and inclusion

The corollary of heterogeneity is inequality, and it is important to include
ethical implications of heterogeneity. How these are interpreted is a philo-
sophical question, but most non-philosophers will have opinions on ethical
questions. Inequality is unevenness, a feature of heterogeneity, and in
itself is not necessarily bad, but more a fact of life. But one thing leads to
another: inequality leads to inequity which is unfairness and, in most
ethical frameworks, is considered to be bad; and inequity ultimately leads
to iniquity which is wickedness (Poole, 2005). Almost everyone would
agree that iniquity is a synonym for bad, not only bad for individuals but
bad for society more widely, not least because of the probability of social and
political discord.
Increasing awareness of inequality and its consequences is why one of
the SDGs is a specific goal to Reduce inequality (Goal 10, located in the
second level of Figure 1.1). More specifically, SDG 5 is to Reduce gender
inequality. And without greater equality, it will be difficult to achieve
other goals, particularly SDG 16, Promote peaceful and inclusive societies,
justice and accountability. Development practitioners may hesitate to
enter debates about philosophy, but the ethical dimensions of development
strategies, policies, and practice are firmly entrenched within the Sustainable
Development Goals.
Two examples highlight the significance of inequality in the development
discourse, and many others would serve to emphasize the point:
According to Berdegu and Fuentealba (2011), in Latin America during

the early 1980s there were 124 million rural inhabitants, 74 million
of whom were poor, and of whom 41 million were hungry; after three
decades, the numbers are 119 million, 62 million and 35 million, respec-
tively. Meanwhile, in the same period GDP per capita increased by over
25 per cent in real terms.
Like parts of Latin America, India has experienced dramatic economic
growth in recent decades. But Indias growth has been concentrated
among a growing middle class that is still hugely outweighed by the mass
of the population left in poverty. A recent publication has commented
that the average annual GDP growth of 4.2 per cent between 1990 and
2005 has failed to reduce the burden of poverty and insecurity at a rate
comparable to most developing countries this is the Indian enigma
(Pritchard et al., 2014).
While extolling the rates of development in the global South, the United
Nations Human Development Report also draws a distinction between
economic growth and human development progress. The middle class in
the South is growing in size, income, and expectations, but inequality is

high. Not all countries and not all people within a country benefit from
the patterns of Southern growth. The Report draws particular attention
to the impact of education policies, the failure of which will adversely
affectmany essential pillars of human development for future generations
(United Nations, 2013).
Social and economic inclusion as a means to overcome inequality are
important and have been much debated. Helmsing and Vellema (2011)
draw attention to the importance of poor peoples voice, which enables the
poorest to assess the advantages of poverty reduction interventions against
the trade-offs and risks. While inequality is assumed to be undesirable,
inclusion as an objective itself needs further examination. For Helmsing
and Vellema (2011: 12), inclusion and exclusion are more usefully seen as
processes shaping how (rather than if) actors participate. They note that some
actors may be excluded or self-exclude from a particular economic enterprise
in favour of other activities and networks.
Thus, identifying and targeting beneficiaries of market initiatives and
the scope for upscaling successful interventions become important policy
dilemmas; and voice should be given to the targets so that they can consider
strategic alternatives. Summing up the introduction to their edited volume
on poor peoples inclusion in commercial agribusiness chains, Helmsing and
Vellema (2011: 18) comment:
The development impacts of inclusion of small producers, local firms

and workers in (global) value chains importantly depends on two
conditions: the terms of participation in the process of inclusion and the
degree of alignment of value chain logics with the capacities of actors
and the institutions.
That people should be central to the processes affecting their lives now
seems obvious. Nevertheless, policymakers too easily make statements that
abstract from the complications of reality. For example, the Government of
Uganda signalled the importance of arable agriculture in promoting the food
security of the pastoralist Karamojong people.
Karamoja has for a long time been buying food from her neighbours,
this is the time to change the trend so that Karamojas neighbours
can rely on her for food, said the [Karamoja Affairs] Minister after
she was impressed by the manyacresof different foods grown
[TheMinister] commended this work saying that if many families
embraced farming on a large scale, Karamoja would get to the desired
level of development. She saluted the families who have tirelessly
worked in the fields to grow food to feed their families and urged them
to produce more so that they can remain food secure throughout the
year and even have surplus for sale (ChimpReports, 2013).
However, the plan to make every household cultivate arable crops in a garden
has been criticized by many development authorities for failing to consider
the social, economic, and agroecological contexts and involving the people
themselves in determining their livelihood strategies (IRIN, 2014).
Thus, voice and choice both matter in identifying and prioritizing
problems, and in the planning and implementation of agricultural
development and market participation policies. Credence has to be given
to the complexities of household management: smallholders will not
respond automatically to initiatives to promote agricultural commerciali
zation. Aswell as policy incentives, the local context, individual characte
ristics, and the opportunities and threats of the external environment
affect smallholder choices:
Expanding commercial agriculture requires a decided mind-set: a

commitment to farming and new technologies, a low threshold of
risk aversion, willingness to invest in land and soils, access to finance,
skills in managing business relations, price negotiation, time spent in
markets, product and process quality control and assurance, continuous
improvement and efficiency enhancement. Also, collective activity
with the inherent operational and management challenges is necessary
for minimizing transaction and transformation costs, and involves
significant individual and organizational learning. This commercial-
izing metanarrative is much riskier than subsistence farming, rural wage
labour and/or migration, and may not be an attractive profession (Poole
et al., 2013b: 164).
The limitations of agricultural development for poverty reduction

A critical issue underlying the research and knowledge reported in this book
is the commensurability between development interventions and objectives.
By this we mean that initiatives and interventions should address appropriate
levels of objectives and not pretend to cure all the market problems noted
above. It has been said that The same objective can often be served by several
alternative policy instruments; and the same policy instruments can affect
the attainment of several policy objectives (ILRI, 1995). This is largely true,
and therefore it is necessary to be wary of the single instrument trap which
posits that there is only one way (instrument) to tackle a problem or set an
objective (ILRI, 1995).
At the same time, commensurability between an instrument and an objective
is a warning against unreasonable expectations that a low-level instrument
can achieve a high-level objective. This concern that expectations should be
realistic and grounded in reality is certainly applicable to smallholders access
to markets: as we have noted, improving smallholders market access is an
objective per se, and may contribute to higher-level objectives such as poverty
reduction. The needs of the poorest smallholders are probably best met by
creating jobs, building their assets, improving their health and education, and
in providing social protection. Market links will not provide multiple wins
(Wiggins and Keats, 2013: ix).
The complexity and interrelatedness of the new SDGs has been referred
to already: the potential synergies and conflicts between the goals will create
numerous policy dilemmas and require careful examination of the outcomes
of interventions across sectors in ways to which development specialists are
not accustomed. For example, boosting agricultural growth may adversely
affect resource management and climate change; promoting female partici-
pation in the agricultural economy may adversely affect girls education and
household caring practices. Many other conflicts and trade-offs are plausible,
giving rise to considerable governance challenges (Waage et al., 2015).
What then are the scope and limitations of improving smallholders access
to markets, of agricultural development? What also are the necessary accom-
panying approaches? What we have is a tension between two propositions.
First, we agree that there are multiplier effects of agricultural development on
broader processes; one strategy can have wide impacts, as shown in Figure 1.3
which makes explicit the connections between agricultural development and
wider development processes.
Second, we face the reality that addressing even one high-level goal requires
multiple approaches. Agricultural development depends on a range of other
factors (Figure 1.4).
If addressing such goals requires multiple and integrated strategies,
aspirations for what can be achieved by increasing smallholder participation
in agricultural market development must be limited, rather than resolving
all development problems. Thus, the impact of specific and focused actions
to improve smallholders market access should not be judged by the wider
impact on overall poverty reduction and other SDGs.
Nutrition, health, and

food security
Incomes and
employment
Sustainable
Agricultural
resources
development
management
Exports
Economic
restructuring
Figure 1.3 Agricultures contribution to other sectors, activities, and policies
Health and
education policies
Agricultural
input supplies
Knowledge Agricultural
management development
Trade and
market policies
Environment and
natural resources
Figure 1.4 Agricultures dependence on other sectors, activities, and policies
Here we focus on a more discrete and immediate objective within the

processes of agricultural development. The task is to enable smallholder
farmers to make sales (and perhaps purchases) of goods and services
inmarkets which hitherto have been closed or non-existent. One of
thesecondary effects will be to boost the sector as a whole by raising
incomes, creating employment, increasing foreign exchange earnings,
substituting agricultural imports, and increasing food security. But this
process alone cannot be expected to resolve the wider rural needs of
reducing poverty and hunger, improving health and nutrition, promoting
gender equality, facilitating economic restructuring, and stimulating
industrial development.
Nevertheless, it is important not to narrow the analytical scope unduly.
Important considerations are equity and sustainability: we must understand
who accesses the markets and benefits from the sales, and whether the benefits
are likely to last in the long term. Gender impacts, the interests of thepoorest,
and environmental sustainability are all relevant policy dimensions when
considering smallholders access to markets. The thinking and research
covered in this book are concerned with this lower level in the hierarchy of
policy formulation and development practice.
A note on terminology
We have noted that there are goals, trade-offs, conflicts, constraints, and
priorities in the political processes that affect the expectations and achieve-
ments of policies and approaches to improving market access. A common
understanding of these concepts will help the subsequent analyses and
discussions. This is how these terms will be used:
Priorities. With limited resources, there is usually a hierarchy or ranking

whereby one objective is considered to be more important than another.
Trade-offs. One objective has to be set aside in favour of another which

is assigned higher priority.
Conflicts. Achieving one objective reduces the possibility of achieving,
oropportunity to achieve, another objective.

Constraints. The existence of priorities, trade-offs, and conflicts imposes
limits on what can be achieved, and together often imply minimum
thresholds for action within the specific development context and the
wider policy environment.
Decisions about priorities, acceptance of trade-offs and resolution of

conflicts are normative, part of the political process, which in turn and ideally
can be influenced by voters and stakeholders, particularly from among benefi-
ciaries and advocacy organizations.
Moreover, we have already employed a variety of terms that are used
to discuss development issues and policy, including goal, objective, target,
indicator, approach, mechanism, and instrument. When thinking about
agricultural development, greater precision is helpful. For clarity of commu-
nication and understanding, from here on the intention is to refer to the
following:
Objective. A desired state that can be, inter alia, human, natural,
economic, or technological and can range within a hierarchy from the
low level, specific, and small scale to high level, large in scale and
scope.
Goal. A high-level objective, usually long term in nature and large in
scale and scope.
Target. A low- or intermediate-level objective that may be short to
medium term and which contributes to achieving a goal.
Indicator. A measurable phenomenon enabling assessment of progress
towards reaching a target.
Policy. A defined and coherent programme formulated to achieve an
objective, usually medium to long term, with a set of specified actions
and activities.
Approach. The conceptual development and empirical experience which
together constitute a theory of change and the evidence base for a
particular policy formulation.
Intervention. A project, action, or activity of an agency (public, private,
third sector) external to the targeted beneficiaries, undertaken as part of
a policy formulated to achieve an objective.
Initiative. A project, action, or activity which arises from within or
among beneficiary organizations and individuals.
Instrument. The specific mechanism, means, and methods whereby an
intervention or initiative is implemented.
These definitions cascade downwards from the general to the particular.

Similarly, the results of specific interventions and initiatives are building blocks
on which higher-level policies are formulated and higher-level objectives can

be achieved, which is a process of escalation upwards: a policy pyramid.
While this is intuitively plausible, the mechanisms or a theory of change
through which the upwards escalation of impacts and effects are, or should
be, mediated are usually not clearly articulated. It is important to make these
connections in order to understand how escalation of local development
outcomes may (fail to) contribute to higher level objectives.
About the book

It will become clear that this book is about the success or otherwise of efforts
at addressing the low-level objective of market access and participation.
Thedimensions of market access access by whom and for how long fall
within the analytical scope of the studies reported but at the same time
theobjective of the book is itself limited. Considering the hierarchy of
objectives to which we have referred, improving smallholders market access
is an intermediate-level objective. Positive impacts on higher-level poverty
reduction objectives can be expected but are attenuated by these realities.
Therefore, the extent to which the research and development activities
reported here achieve their objectives should not be measured by the many
higher-level indicators that together reflect the wide range of policies and
objectives subsumed within the SDGs, concepts of sustainable development,
and comprehensive formulations of economics, ethics, and the environment.
In short, improving market access alone cannot solve rural poverty.
Nevertheless, the book will address two questions drawing on concepts
andempirical results of a programme of work undertaken by the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO):
it will indicate the strengths and weaknesses of interventions and

initiatives formulated to improve smallholder market access; and
considering the policy realities explained above, it will evaluate
improving market access as an approach which contributes to bigger
development goals.
From diverse international research and development activities and reports,

this book distils new knowledge on models of agricultural development which
create opportunities for small-scale agricultural entrepreneurs, and specifically
for improving smallholders access to markets. It tackles four conundrums:
It recognizes that universal smallholder participation in commercial

markets is unattainable and also that commercial elitism is undesirable.
It accepts that there are economies of scale in agricultural production,
but also asserts that diseconomies occur at both extremes: large scale
and small scale.
It rejects a model of pure, large-scale agricultural capitalism which squeezes
smaller players out of the market and too often actually off the land
which is the basis of their livelihood, patrimony, and social meaning.
It fosters the notion of inclusive forms of agricultural entrepreneurship,

meaning the opportunities created for small-scale farmers to coordinate
and integrate their production with larger-scale agribusiness.
The implication for policies of agricultural development, export, and

food security is that it is important not to promote large-scale agricultural
capitalism and agribusiness at the expense of smallholder inclusion in
economic development.
The book draws on a wide academic and development literature, including
much of the authors own work. The core cases described in the book
(Chapters 69) are those obtained through the All African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) Agricultural Commodities Programme (AAACP) funded by the
European Union, which ran from 2008 to 2011 (see FAO, undated, All ACP
Agricultural Commodities Programme).
The AAACP, with a budget of 45 m, was an inter-agency initiative
implemented by FAO, the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), the
International Trade Centre (ITC), the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD), and the World Bank.
The overall objective of the programme was to reduce income vulner-
ability and improve the livelihoods of producers dependent on agricul-
tural commodities in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific regions by building
the capacity of actors along commodity chains to develop and implement
sustainable value chain strategies. The development cases were principally
managed by FAO, whose mandate is to improve nutrition, increase agricultural
productivity, raise the standard of living in rural populations, and contribute
to global economic growth (see FAO, undated, About FAO).
The case studies elaborated in Chapters 69 and further analysed in
Chapter10 were funded by the CFC and implemented by the FAO. They are
used to highlight the interrelationship between projects and participants, inter-
ventions and beneficiaries, organizations and individuals. One important factor
that conditions market development and the involvement of smallholders is
the role of government. Recognition that markets are not often free and fair
has promoted the view that appropriate regulation is important to boost
economic growth and performance. This book will not delve into regulatory
issues, important though they are. It suffices to end this introduction with the
prevailing World Bank view of regulation in agribusiness, which hints at some
of the issues such as market failure, transaction costs, and risk which feature in
later chapters, but which the avid reader can follow up separately:
It is crucial to have regulations that can lower risk by enabling farmers

to operate in a context where the outcomes of their decisions are more
predictable. Governments need to strike the right balance between
correcting market failures through regulations and minimizing the
costs that those regulations impose on economic agents. This balance
is essential for agriculture, but it is also particularly challenging (World
Bank, 2017: x).
References
Africa Progress Panel (2012). Jobs, Justice and Equity: Seizing opportunities in
times of global change. Africa Progress Report 2012. Retrieved 28 March 2017,
fromhttp://www.africaprogresspanel.org/publications/policy-papers/africa-
progress-report-2012/.
Amrouk, E.M., Poole, N.D., Mudungwe, N. and Muzvondiwa, E. (2013).
TheImpact of Commodity Development Projects on Smallholders Market Access
in Developing Countries: Case studies of FAO/CFC Projects. Rome, United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved 28 March 2017,
from http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/aq290e/aq290e.pdf.
Angelucci, F., Cafiero, C. and Malua, M. (undated). A Supply Chain Finance
and Risk Management Scheme for Addressing Financial Needs and Constraints
to Smallholders Participation in Samoan Fruits and Vegetables Value Chains.
Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Arias, P., Hallam, D., Krivonos, E. and Morrison, J. (2013). Smallholder Integration
in Changing Food Markets. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.fao.org/
docrep/018/i3292e/i3292e.pdf.
Barrett, C.B. (2008). Smallholder market participation: concepts and evidence
from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy 33(4): 299317 <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.005>.
Berdegu, J.A. and Fuentealba, R. (2011). Latin America: The state of
smallholders in agriculture. IFAD Conference on New Directions for
Smallholder Agriculture. Rome, International Fund for Agricultural
Development.
Breisinger, C., Ecker, O., Al Riffai, P. and Yu, B. (2012). Beyond the Arab
Awakening: Policies and investments for poverty reduction and food security.
Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved
28 March 2017, from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/
pr25.pdf.
ChimpReports (2013). Janet moves to reverse Karamojas worsening
hunger. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from http://www.chimpreports.com/
14024-janet-moves-to-reverse-karamojas-worsening-hunger/.
Devaux, A., Torero, M., Donovan, J. and Horton, D., eds, (2016). Innovation
for Inclusive Value Chain Development: Successes and challenges. Washington,
DC, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
FAO (2012). Smallholders and Family Farmers. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/
Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf.
FAO (2013). The State of Food and Agriculture 2013: Food systems for better
nutrition. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.fao.org/publications/
sofa/2013/en/.
FAO (2016). The State of Food and Agriculture 2016: Climate change, agriculture
and food Security. Rome, FAO. Retrieved 02 November 2016, from http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf.
FAO (undated). All ACP Agricultural Commodities Programme. Retrieved
27April 2017, from http://www.fao.org/economic/EST/AAACP/en/.
FAO (undated). About FAO. Retrieved 27 April 2017, from http://www.fao.

org/about/en/.
Helmsing, A.H.J. and Vellema, S., eds, (2011). Value Chains, Social Inclusion and
Economic Development: Contrasting theories and realities. London, Routledge.

IFAD (2011). Feeding future generations: Young rural people today prosperous,
productive farmers tomorrow. Proceedings of the Governing Council High-Level
Panel and Side Events, in conjunction with the Thirty-fourth Session of IFADs
Governing Council. Rome, United Nations International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD). Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.ifad.org/
events/gc/34/panels/proceedings.pdf.
IFAD (2016). Rural Development Report 2016: Fostering inclusive rural trans-
formation. Rome, United Nations International Fund for Agricultural
Development. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from https://www.ifad.org/
ruraldevelopmentreport.
ILRI (1995). Livestock Policy Analysis. ILRI Training Manual 2. Nairobi, Kenya,
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Retrieved 22 May 2017,
from http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5547e/x5547e0i.htm.
IRIN (2014). Alarm over mandatory gardens in Karamoja. Retrieved
28March 2017, from http://www.irinnews.org/report/99523/alarm-over-
mandatory-gardens-in-karamoja.
Kaplinsky, R. and Morris, M. (2002). A Handbook for Value Chain Research.
Prepared for IDRC. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.value-
chains.org/dyn/bds/docs/395/Handbook%20for%20Value%20Chain%20
Analysis.pdf.
Karembu, M. (2013). Preparing youth for high-tech agriculture. In R.B. Heap
and D.J. Bennett, eds, Insights: Africas future can biosciences contribute?
pp. 9197. Cambridge, UK, Banson.
LANSA (undated). Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia. Retrieved
27 April 2017 from http://www.lansasouthasia.org/.
Maestre, M., Poole, N. and Henson, S. (2017). Assessing food value chain
pathways, linkages and impacts for better nutrition of vulnerable groups.
Food Policy 68: 3139 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.007>.
Minten, B., Tamru, S., Engida, E. and Kuma, T. (2013). Ethiopias Value Chains
on the Move: The case of teff. Washington, DC, International Food Policy
Research Institute. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from https://lirias.kuleuven.
be/bitstream/123456789/456070/1/ESSP+Working+Paper+52.pdf.
Poole, N.D. (2005). Poverty, inequality and ethnicity: a note to policy makers on
Latin America. Eurochoices 4(3): 4449 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-
692X.2005.00017.x>.
Poole, N.D., Alvarez, F., Vazquez, R. and Penagos, N. (2013a). Education for
all and for what? Life-skills and livelihoods in rural communities. Journal
of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 3(1): 6478 <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/20440831311321656>.
Poole, N.D., Chitundu, M. and Msoni, R. (2013b). Commercialisation: a
meta-approach for agricultural development among smallholder farmers
in Africa? Food Policy 41(August): 155165 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodpol.2013.05.010>.
Poole, N., Audia, C., Kaboret, B. and Kent, R. (2016a). Tree products,
food security and livelihoods: a household study of Burkina Faso.
Environmental Conservation 43(4): 359367 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/

S0376892916000175>.
Poole, N., Echavez, C. and Rowland, D. (2016b). Stakeholder perceptions of
agriculture and nutrition policies and practice: evidence from Afghanistan. LANSA
Working Paper Number 9. Chennai, India, Leveraging Agriculture for
Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA), MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.
Retrieved 07 April 2017, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/5963972ee5274a0a59000157/Mapping_stakeholder_perceptions__
Afghanistan_on_template_0.pdf.
Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., Sekher, M., Parasuraman, S. and Choitani, C.
(2014). Feeding India: Livelihoods, entitlement and capabilities. Abingdon, UK,
Routledge.
Provost, C. and Jobson, E. (2014). Move over quinoa, Ethiopias teff poised
to be next big super grain. The Guardian. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/23/quinoa-
ethiopia-teff-super-grain.
Rogers, T.S., Morrison, J.A. and Bammann, H. (2010). Agriculture for Growth:
Learning from experience in the Pacific. Summary results of five country studies in
Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. EU-AAACP Paper. Rome, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28March
2017, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am011e/am011e00.pdf.
Rosset, P.M. and Martnez-Torres, M.E. (2012). Rural social movements and
agroecology: context, theory, and process. Ecology and Society 17(3): C717
<http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05000-170317>.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An essay on entitlements and deprivation.
Oxford, UK, Clarendon.
Sutherland, P.D. (2013). Migration is development: how migration matters
to the post-2015 debate. Migration and Development 2(2): 151156 <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2013.817763>.
United Nations (2013). Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South:
Human progress in a diverse world. New York, United Nations Development
Programme. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://hdr.undp.org/
en/2013-report.
UN-DESA (undated). UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved
27 April 2017 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?
menu=1300.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (undated). UN
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Retrieved 27 April 2017
from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1300.
Waage, J. and Yap, C., eds, (2015). Thinking Beyond Sectors for Sustainable
Development. London, Ubiquity Press.
Waage, J., Dangour, A.D., Hawkesworth, S., Johnston, D., Lock, K., Poole,
N.D., Rushton, J. and Uauy, R. (2011). Understanding and Improving the
Relationship between Agriculture and Health. A review commissioned as part
of the UK Governments Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming
Futures. London, The Government Office for Science. Retrieved 22 January
2016, from http://www.lcirah.ac.uk/_assets/Foresight%20Report%20
Agriculture%20and%20Health%20review.PDF.
Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell, S., Levy, C., Mace, G., Pegram, T., Unterhalter, E.,
Dasandi, N., Hudson, D., Kock, R., Mayhew, S., Marx, C. and Poole, N.
(2015). Governing Sustainable Development Goals: interactions, infra-
structures, and institutions. In J. Waage and C. Yap, eds, Thinking Beyond

Sectors for Sustainable Development, pp. 7988. London, Ubiquity Press.
Wiggins, S. and Keats, S. (2013). Leaping and Learning: Linking smallholders to
markets in Africa. London, Agriculture for Impact, Imperial College and
Overseas Development Institute.
World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for development.
Washington, DC, World Bank. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf.
World Bank (2016). World Development Indicators 2016. Retrieved 28 March
2017, from http://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi.
World Bank (2017). Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017. Washington, DC,
World Bank. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://eba.worldbank.org/~/
media/WBG/AgriBusiness/Documents/Reports/2017/EBA2017-Report17.
pdf.
CHAPTER 2
Policy approaches
and theoretical considerations
This chapter discusses the evolution of policies and approaches to agricultural
development in recent decades. We introduce theory and literature relevant to
smallholder farming; understanding how households and individuals behave is key to
stimulating peoples own initiatives and in designing and implementing development
policies to improve livelihoods. The costs and benefits of engaging in markets to
boost development are an important determinant of behaviour, as are the assets
and attributes that each individual and household can make use of. The chapter
closes by introducing the concept of the value chain as a development paradigm
for promoting markets and development, and the particular implications for partici-
pation of smallholder farmers.
Keywords: households, transaction costs, livelihoods, capital assets, value

chains, participation
Changing policies: from market systems to value chains

The post-colonial period
For developing economies, the potential of marketing systems to assure the
availability of foodstuffs to rural and urban populations and to stimulate
development drove research in the early decades of the post-colonial era.
Reflecting on the first two decades after the Second World War, Jones (1974)
noted the finding, novel for many analysts, that marketing was not a new
phenomenon, but was much more common in the pre-colonial period than
was previously thought (Jones, 1974: 4).
System inefficiencies were often attributed to market imperfections and
exploitative traders, suggesting the need for significant interventions to
improve market performance (Jones, 1974). For many developing countries,
the balance of initiative in promoting agricultural marketing lay with the
state rather than with the individual until the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The expansion of public-sector marketing could not have been undertaken
without the provision of aid from bilateral and multilateral donors, whose
policies constituted an endorsement of a state-led strategy. Marketing boards
and cooperatives were a convenient counterpart agency for donors whose
programmes of food aid, infrastructural investment, and rural development
projects were increasing in importance.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.002
Market liberalization
The period of structural adjustment through fiscal austerity, privatization,
and trade liberalization, and the Washington Consensus phases of inter-

national development policy, followed the early post-colonial agricultural
development policy of state-led intervention. There were diverse patterns
ofmarket reform, from the redefinition of parastatal roles, through a range of
radical changes, to abolition of state intervention. The nature of the policies
being adopted depended partly on ideology, and partly on assumptions about
the capacity of the private sector to respond. Other considerationswere the
estimate of risk of failure in unprofitable markets, the importance accorded
tosocial or public objectives such as stockholding and pan-territorial
pricing, the existence of scale economies, and the danger of emerging
privatized monopolies.
Reduction in the state management of price and other policies was
accompanied by reduced provision of services such as agricultural inputs and
extension (Poole et al., 2013b). The potential for a response from the private
sector to economic incentives and opportunities should have created a sense
of optimism in stimulating efficient and competitive markets, and overcoming
the livelihood constraints of poor producers and traders. The propensity
of producers to engage in trade should have been a sound foundation for
market-led economic growth. However, the resurgence of faith in liberal
market mechanisms towards the end of the 20th century was paralleled by
international policy neglect of the rural economy, and an uninterested attitude
to, even a disengagement from, agriculture.
As it turned out, liberalization policies did not generally lead to efficiency
and market-led growth. As traders were not willing or able to fill the void,
farmers were left without market outlets. The radical reduction in the scope
of state intervention and the not infrequent collapse of organized marketing
systems did not stimulate a strong private-sector response, nor generate higher
levels of competition. On the contrary, liberalization tended to precipitate
a decline in agricultural trading. Indeed, many interventions were counter-
productive. Barrett has noted that Coupled with exchange rate devaluation
or depreciation that drives up the cost of tradable inputs (e.g., fuel), many
market-oriented reforms of the past twenty or so years have sharply increased
the costs of commerce, driving some regions and households back towards
subsistence production (2008: 311).
Revising policies and approaches

In looking for explanations for this policy failure, the costs of transactions
in agricultural marketing were increasingly recognized during the 1990s as
an obstacle to market efficiency. At the end of the century it was clear that
most farmers without commercial knowledge or experience were unable to
engage successfully in marketing their produce on their own account, and the
POLICY APPROACHES AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 37
possibility for many smallholders of engaging in high-value export markets

was remote. Therefore, following the promotion of more liberal market
mechanisms and into the post-Washington Consensus, policymakers began
to look for intervention mechanisms to overcome both market and state

failures in order to reduce poverty through economic growth.
The context of agricultural marketing in the new millennium has also
changed dramatically. Much more has been learned since then about how
real markets actually function. The recognition then of the opportunity
to create marketable surpluses, and to exchange goods and services over
larger distances in order to make these foodstuffs available, anticipated the
explosion of international trade together with the social, economic, and
political processes of globalization with which we are now familiar. This was
facilitated by liberal market economics, technological change, and expanding
commercial strategies, and was affected by institutional intervention for
(and against) international agricultural development and trade through the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization
(WTO)processes.
It is evident that donor ideology has also influenced the choice of organi-
zational forms and marketing interventions (Poole, 2010). Donor policies
are in turn influenced by pragmatic considerations such as how aid can be
most easily dispensed and impact monitored. This probably applies just as
much at the beginning of the 21st century as during the 20th century, and
the danger of interventions representing prevailing conventional wisdom
remains. A wide range of considerations come into play for influencing
policy choices: re-evaluation of the positive role of the state in facilitating the
Green Revolution; a resurgence of interest in collective organizations; and the
development of the stakeholder concept. Comparative approaches to political
economy and network approaches to business are beginning to vindicate a
hybrid policy approach, drawing on models of both liberal and coordinated
market economies (Hall and Soskice, 2001). That is to say, whilethe private
sector accounts for most successful economic activity, market failures are still
pervasive in developing countries and require both initiatives from the private
sector and interventions from the state and the third sector. Critical voices
increasingly question the value of external development aid when compared
with financial resources which originate within developing countries.
Capitalizing on local financial resources and business initiative can enable
smallholders and other small enterprises to integrate into modern value
chains. Where this can be done without external intervention it is simply
good business (Harper et al., 2015).
Making markets work for the poor

Since the early 2000s, considerable attention has been attached to improving
the performance of the wider business environment. The approach of
Making markets work for the poor (MMW4P, or M4P) stresses the process
of creating opportunities through increasing access to markets, achieving

equitable and remunerative prices for goods and services, and reducing
risk. M4P is a market-systems-development approach to poverty reduction
adopted by a number of international organizations (Dorward and Poole 2004;

TheSpringfield Centre 2008). In 2011 the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) set out its intention to leverage private-sector initiatives
for development and poverty reduction:
A key tenet of DFIDs approach to private-sector led growth and sustained

poverty reduction is a concerted effort to promote accessible and well-
functioning markets. Better functioning markets can increase the
demand for, and supply of, more affordable and appropriate goods and
services that better meet the needs of the poor as consumers. Inturn,
they also create opportunities and generate incomes for the poor as
producers, employees and entrepreneurs (DFID 2013).
With the distinctive inclusion of patterns of consumption as well as

production, this highlights the important contribution of the agri-food sector
to both the quantity and quality of food supplies for health and nutrition.
The central idea of making markets work for poor people is that poor
peoples livelihoods are linked to market exchange. The focus is on inter-
ventions which address market-system imperfections. The market system is
understood to be the arrangement of multiple players business, government,
and civil society and the core, rules, and supporting functions through
which economic exchange occurs, develops, adapts, and grows. It is said to be
a construct through which both markets and basic services can be examined
(The Springfield Centre, 2015).
The unit of analysis being the market system, the potential for replication
and widespread roll-out of successful interventions is significant. In the M4P
approach, interventions are designed based on an analysis of factors which
relate closely to the project cycle:
setting the strategic framework;

understanding market systems;
defining sustainable outcomes;
facilitating systemic change;
assessing change.
With a conceptual basis in economics, the strength of M4P is its focus on

improving the commercial and policy environments which so strongly affect
the attractiveness of doing agribusiness (World Bank, 2016; World Bank
Group, 2016). The World Banks approach is motivated by the need for agricul-
tural development to address the demands of a growing world population
which might reach ninebillion people by 2050. Analysis of regulatory practices
enables stakeholders to identify the barriers that hinder the development of
agribusiness and the transaction costs of dealing with government regulations.
There is an inbuilt assumption that, given an enabling environment of adequate
institutional structures and conduct, poor people will be able to benefit from
engagement in such markets.
In diagnosing market imperfection and designing potential interven-
tions, the M4P analysis is highly applied, and the intervention approach is
somewhat mechanistic, inasmuch as the actual characterization and selection
of target groups (diagnosis of the poor and their context) is rudimentary
(see Box 2.1): market rather than household- or people-focused. It suggests
a range of tools socio-economic studies, census data, poverty assessments,
livelihoods analysis, investment climate surveys, competitiveness analysis,
drivers of change (The Springfield Centre, 2008: 28) but does not use the
range of disciplinary approaches necessary to understand peoples attitudes,
aspirations, and vulnerabilities.
While M4P envisages commercial interventions and is pro-competitive
structures, it is weak in the policy dimension and draws back from
advocating innovative public-policy interventions and radical restructuring
Box 2.1 The M4P diagnostic process in practice

The poor and their context
Facilitators objectives are for large-scale, pro-poor growth in rural regions

Rural area; hundreds of thousands of small farmers below poverty line; agriculture is
main source of household income
Rice is principal crop but some vegetable cultivation also: demand for vegetables
significantly outstrips supply
Declining crop yields recognized as key problem within the sector
Specific market system
Vegetable value chain serves local or regional markets

Farmers use a variety of inputs bought from local retailers
Income from vegetable production is low due to low productivity
Farmers lack knowledge about appropriate inputs and cultivation techniques
Farmers get information from a variety of sources: other farmers, government extension
workers, agricultural supply retailers, and NGOs
Farmers are dissatisfied with information they receive from all these sources
Systemic constraints
Farmers are most likely to turn to retailers for information as they are most widespread
and accessible
Retailers tend to push products to maximize their own modest income; they do not see
themselves as a source of information
Retailers buy their supplies from large-input suppliers, who also provide them with
information and support, but only about their own products
Input suppliers have the capacity and incentive to support retailers to become more
effective sources of information: satisfied farmers are good for business
Intervention focus
Changing the distribution-channel development practices of large input suppliers
Source: The Springfield Centre (2008: 35)

and resource reallocation. Linkages of enterprise concepts to movements

advocating collective organization are also weak because there is little
emphasis on market systems.
There are many lessons to be learned still about how to encourage

smallholder inclusion in agri-food markets. On the one hand, poverty has
been reduced through local and international economic growth in many
contexts; on the other, the complexity of production systems, disadvantageous
economic geography, bad governance, and climate change continue to assail
and define the poorest populations. While there have been notable achieve-
ments in agricultural development and marketing overrecent decades, food
and agricultural marketing research have not provided widespread solutions to
the current problems of global security and poverty reduction.
Among the inferences to be drawn from past experience, the most
important is that ideological shifts have not resulted in viable policies to boost
the contribution of agricultural marketing to poverty and hunger reduction in
many situations. Because poverty problems are specific to a given development
context, the demand for generalizability and upscaling of interventions is
often ineffective and misplaced.
Consequently, it is necessary to emphasize empirical approaches to policy
formulation based on precise and disaggregated studies. Effective interven-
tions are likely to be local and particular, and therefore more costly than
the ranges of rates of return and net present values to which economists are
accustomed. On the contrary, targeting the local economy through interven-
tions and investments in local assets, structures, and institutions is more likely
to bring significant benefits to communities of the poor and hungry.
Institutional innovation
Agreeing with Barretts view that The primary theme in the literature on
smallholder market participation is the importance of transactions costs
(2008: 310), Poole and de Frece (2010) suggest that often it is small-scale
institutional innovations in local market organization that serve best to
stimulate smallholder participation in input and output markets: institu
tional innovation is needed in respect of new rules of the game and
also new types of organization, i.e. new players in the game. So, too, are
specific investments in human and social capital, and business and market
organization: new ways of organizing both people and markets to work for
the poor.
It is interesting that, after decades of underperformance, there is a resurgence
of interest in farmer organizations. Box 2.2 outlines the arguments in favour
of collective organizations.
Challenged by the Millennium Development Goals, policymakers turned
to value chain approaches, the delivery of specific business services, and the
facilitation of wider enabling environments that might make market systems
and chains work better for the poorest (Poole, 2010). Value chains will still
Box 2.2 Collective organization: Can it contribute to more equitable and efficient markets?
There are theoretical explanations of the failures of collective organisation but, at
the same time, the fundamental reasons for collaborating hold true: the potential for
exploiting production and managerial economies of scale, overcoming market entry
barriers, reducing transaction costs, and cultivating supply chain relationships. Collective
decision making may be cumbersome, and top-down decision making may be undesirable.
But new forms of collective enterprise illustrate that innovative business models can
work: new generation cooperatives may provide solutions to some of the historical
andstructural problems of cooperatives. There are alternative management structuresand
financial resources either philanthropic support; or external equity investment with a
capacity to exert leverage through management building; or invitations to bondholders
with a financial stake but without governance rights. These strategies offer the possibility
of external capitalisation without diluting membership control.
Despite a history of operational failure, statutory arrangements such as levies and
marketing boards are also mechanisms with potential to overcome market failures and the
provision of public goods
The approach of external supporting organisations must be patient and realistic.
Collective enterprise may not always work because usually there are threshold levels of
asset requirements and of external support for successful group formation and operation.
It is clear that collective enterprises are organic: they learn and grow, sometimes fail,
and sometimes need to rise from the ashes of incompetence and corruption. The path
to maturity is usually long, and needs supportive investment through a range of planned
and sequenced business services, with an exit strategy emplaced to ensure progress
towards sustainability. And there is no one size-fits all, and no guarantee that individual
successes can be upscaled and replicated
What part does the institutional framework play?

The importance of the historical, political and market context within which smallholder
enterprise operates is clear. Institutions frame the relationship between state and the
citizen and organisations, mediating the flows of technical support towards the
grassroots, and advocacy towards the state, and the relationship of politics to local
development processes. The purpose of the formal legal and regulatory framework, such as
competition and business laws and cooperative laws is, in part, to shape the environment
and enable business to operate effectively. This may or may not happen in practice:
producer organisations often are surrounded by legal restrictions, and micro-, small and
medium-sized enterprises often go unrecognised by the state as policy stakeholders.
Where sectoral policy is increasingly directed towards scale, efficiency and new technol-
ogies to address food security objectives for growing populations in an era of climate
change and social transformations, the needs of smallholders may be unrecognised and
underprovided. Weaknesses in transport systems and infrastructure, and certain restrictive
trade practices within and between African countries, also impose heavy burdens on local
or regional trade. Such formal business and legal frameworks, policies, and priorities are
critical to economic empowerment of the rural poor.
Source: Poole and de Frece (2010: 810).
be an important concept in the new Sustainable Development Goal era, not

least Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth,
fulland productive employment and decent work for all and Goal 12: Ensure
sustainable consumption and production patterns. We will revisit value
chains later in this chapter.
Theoretical approaches to households, markets,

and marketing for the poor
Households and economic decisions

Barrett (2008) traces the imperative for people to engage in market exchange
to the advantages of specialization and gains consistent with comparative
advantage explained by the classical economics of Adam Smith and David
Ricardo. Such an approach has important insights but makes simplifying
assumptions about the resources and technologies available to economic agents,
and levels of information and patterns of decision making, that are difficult to
uphold for many people engaged in modern markets, let alone smallholder
farmers. In particular, the what?, who?, how? and why? decisions made
in households about production and marketing, and the distribution of gains
from collective enterprise and within households, arecomplex management
phenomena. Farmers decision-making processes are dynamic, affected by a
wide range of endogenous and exogenous factors, idiosyncratic, and difficult
to model. There is no substitute for in-depth research to understand these
phenomena, and there are serious problems with universalizing findings,
implications, and policy proposals.
Nevertheless, theoretical economic constructs like those used by Smith and
Ricardo can provide some partial but useful insights. But as Haddad et al. say,
Although it is widely recognized that the welfare of an individual is, in large
part, based on a complex set of economic and social interactions, development
policies do not always acknowledge these (Haddad et al., 1997: 1). A variety
of economic modelling approaches have been developed to handle the
complexities of intra-household decision making. Latterly, intra-household
resource management and allocation has come to be viewed as both a process
and an outcome (Bennett, 2013). These household models illuminate likely
household power, gender, and intergenerational relations.
Modelling insights
In the theoretical understanding of household behaviour, there is firstly a
unitarymodel whereby the household is considered to be a single decision-
making unit led by a dominant and sometimes benevolent male(Becker, 1976).
This is associated with the work of Becker and Mincer in the 1960s and 1970s,
is consistent with the concept of a single welfare function, and gave rise
to the New Home Economics. In the unitary model, economic efficiency
concerns revolve around maximizing benefits for the household overall, by
making investments with the best returns. Equity issues are those which affect,
for example, distribution of benefits among children: First, parents may be
interested in ensuring that all children are equally well off. Alternatively, they
may have preferences for particular children; for example, boys over girls,
firstborn over latter born, their own children over those whom they raise as
foster children (Haddad et al., 1997: 4).
Substantial criticism of this approach led to the development of alternative

approaches which assume collective and/or consensual decision making by
individuals within a multi-person household, and bargaining approaches,
which assume non-cooperative behaviour. An alternative approach is that of

independent-individual models of decision making (Grossbard, 2010), which
can fall within a spectrum from pure individualism to pure cooperation among
multiple players with one blended utility function and completely pooled
resources (Grossbard, 2010: 4). In Haddad et al. (1997) recognition is given to
both quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches to household welfare,
and also the need for economics to merge with other relevant disciplines,
specifically anthropology and nutrition.
Bargaining models assume that individuals in households act either cooper-
atively or non-cooperatively. Other models allow for joint decisions or accept
that members react to each other in certain ways, by cooperating in some
spheres but acting independently in others. These features are illustrated by
some recent analyses of age and gender relations:
Female participation in decision making or womens bargaining power

is commonly held to be influenced by level of education, incomes, and
assets (Doss, 2013), but also has to do with the presence of parents in the
household (Bayudan-Dacuycuy, 2013).
Dauphin et al. (2011) found evidence for children (aged between
16 and 21, and daughters, irrespective of their age) being household
decision makers in a collective modelling approach to analysing data
from the British Family Expenditure Survey. Evidence was inconclusive
for sons and children over the age of 22.
Lundberg et al. (2009) also found evidence that childrens decision-
making power was a response to a demand for autonomy as well as a
function of parents discretion and investment in child development.
In terms of resource distribution, it can be inferred from work in China
that having a first-born son conferred greater decision-making power on
a woman than having a first-born daughter, resulting in improvements
in the mothers nutrition and reducing the probability of her being
underweight (Li and Wu 2011).
Households and management decisions

Belief in intra-household heterogeneity and gender roles in decision-making
patterns, and a concern for equity underline policies to target women in micro-
finance and social welfare programmes such as conditional cash transfers,
and even land-tenancy arrangements. But as modelling approaches suggest,
women are not isolated decision makers, even in situations of significant male
outmigration, and in many cases decisions about resources are likely to be
negotiated (Tincani, 2012).
Work in Burkina Faso, which may well have a wider resonance, shows
there are various features of Sahelian societies which raise questions about
patterns and changes in intra-household decision making. Firstly, the

traditional pattern of polygamous and complex households (la concession)
raises questions about the dominant role of men, or more specifically the
male household head, vis--vis the adult women in the household. In termsof
negotiating power, aranking of adult women, or more specifically of wives
ofthe male household head, can be expected to affect distributional outcomes
for sub-households (lemnage) concerning access to and quality of land for
agriculture (principally staple grain production), and rights to the grain store
of the male household head.
Within the Sahel, different household endowments in terms of social and
human capital, notably labour, land quantity and quality, and rainfall, are
likely to give rise to different patterns of entitlements and decision making.
The influences arising from the external environment are likely to be highly
significant. The following changes are likely to impact rural household
management dynamics:
geography and infrastructure;

level of services and market competition;
opportunities for employment in the gold industry;
migration to Cte dIvoire;
the encroachment of Western market ethics and evolution of gender
roles;
traditional and Islamic social norms;
ecological changes apparently as a consequence of climate change;
state and private policies and investments and institutions (regulations,
standards, taxation, and ethics);
political instability in neighbouring countries.
Households and market decisions

Participation in agricultural input and product markets is one such complex
decision-making space. Adding in the omnipresent policy interventions
and development initiatives, opting out of markets can still be economi-
cally rational for poor people (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011) because of
idiosyncratic household preferences which are shaped, inter alia, by risk and
vulnerability, and individual attributes and aspirations within this complex
environment. Barrett (2008: 300) states that One thus has to get institutions
and endowments, as well as prices, right in order to induce market-based
development. Assets, infrastructure, and incentives are preconditions for
helping poor households out of a low-level equilibrium of semi-subsistence
production by smallholders operating rudimentary production technologies
with limited assets and participating modestly, if at all, in competitive and
regionally or globally integrated markets offering remunerative terms of trade
(Barrett, 2008: 300). But in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, price and trade
interventions have not been sufficient to allow or encourage smallholders
to enter staple food markets. Household heterogeneity and the contextual
differences already mentioned generate transaction and other costs, plus risk,
such that idiosyncratic obstacles are superimposed on the systemic challenges
of accessing markets.
Reviewing empirical studies on African smallholder market participation

from the 1990s onwards, Barrett (2008) identified a significant literature on
access to high-value markets in a range of countries, and a growing literature on
contract farming and linkages to supermarket retail systems, again, primarily
for high-value products such as those from horticulture. While the lessons
from Barretts magisterial review are likely to have implications for a wider
population, Donovan and Poole (2008) reviewed experiences of smallholder
access to non-traditional agricultural export markets in the Caribbean.
ForBarrett, the evidence for staple food grains markets in sub-Saharan Africa
was less abundant: The body of empirical evidence concerning smallholder
staple food grains market participation patterns in eastern and southern Africa
is thin but consistent and clear with respect to some basic descriptive patterns
(Barrett, 2008: 306). Generally, the literature on staples is weak and research
into staple food crop marketing is undeveloped compared with that for the
more exotic high-value markets. But for many smallholders, such domestic
markets for staple food crops and livestock products are more important than
export markets; they have the scale and linkages to poor households to permit
broad-based agricultural and economic growth and reduce national poverty
within a reasonable period of time.
Barrett found three dominant themes in the literature on Africa:
a relatively small share of rural households sell staple food grains;

there were strong associations between households assets, especially of
land, and geographic factors such as market access and agroecological
zone better-endowed households were much more likely to sell to
market;
weak institutional and physical infrastructure raised transaction costs
and appeared to distort production and marketing behaviour.
Transaction costs
The role of institutions and transaction costs
A digression on institutions and transaction costs is important here. Theintro-
duction to economics of the study of transactions is attributed to the US
political economist John R. Commons. In the tradition of the American
Institutionalists analysing collective action, Commons was searching for an
economic theory of the part played by collective action in the control of
individual action. The three constituents of collective action were, hebelieved,
conflict, dependence, and order. The unit of investigation that would encompass
these three constituents was the transaction: so I made the transaction the
ultimate unit of economic investigation, a unit of transfer of legal control
(Commons, 1934: 4).
Commons was one of the foremost members of what is now referred to as

the Old Institutional Economics (OIE) school. OIE was a continuation of the
19th-century historical schools of political economy which mounted an attack on
most aspects of the emerging neoclassical school and, above all, the behavioural
assumptions associated with the notion of Rational Economic Man.
The fundamentals of OIE concern the organization and control of the
economic system. The forces governing economic outcomes were regarded as
mediated not first and foremost through the price mechanism, but through
power relations, legal rights, and the role of the polity. The operation of
theprice mechanism was not disputed but institutions were held to supersede
prices in importance: It is simply not true that scarce resources are allocated
among alternative uses by the market The real determinant of whatever
allocation occurs in any society is the organizational structure of that
society in short, its institutions (Ayres, 1957: 26). Ayres, among others,
was negative about the allocative role of institutions in economic activity,
whereas Commons was more positive: institutions could promote economic
development and well-being. In the aftermath of the Second World War, insti-
tutionalism gave way before the neoclassical renaissance which became the
mainstream paradigm.
Nevertheless, the significance of institutions in influencing markets
persisted, not least in Coases influential 1937 and 1960 papers (Coase, 1937,
1960). Coase was primarily interested in the organization of the firm, but
his comments on marketing costs gave rise to the notion of transaction
costs in addition to production costs of doing business. Arising out of this
work, New Institutional Economics (NIE) and particularly the Transaction
Cost Economics (TCE) branch was concerned with the organization and
development of economic activity, of contractual arrangements between firms.
Although Williamson traced the origins of TCE to the 1930s (Williamson, 1975),
NIE derives its concern with transaction costs, and little else, from the OIE of
Commons et al. Seminal contributions have been made to the development of
NIE by many other writers.
Williamsons definition of the transaction serves as a first approximation:
a transaction occurs when a good or service is transferred across a technologi-
cally separable interface. One stage of activity terminates and another begins
(Williamson, 1985: 1). Marion identifies four transaction elements (Marion
and NC117 Committee, 1986):
making the deal;
transfer of ownership;
establishing a price;
physical delivery of the product to the buyer.
More generally a transaction is a process linking various functions,

involvingthe exchange of information, goods, services, money, and property
rights. Transaction costs are the costs of these exchanges. At the heart of
transaction costs of measuring, monitoring and mediating are the information
and institutions that are the mechanisms to reduce uncertainty: efficient

exchange means the need to measure the attributes and characteristics
of products and buyers and sellers, to monitor agreements between buyers
and sellers, mechanisms to mediate in case of disputes betweencontracting

parties. It is often said, citing Williamson and Coase, that TCE is an approach
to the conceptualization and analysis of institutional, or contractual, arrange-
ments the diverse forms of contracting governing economic exchange that
are chosen in order to minimize transaction costs.
While drawing essential attention to the significance of non-price factors
in determining decisions about buying and selling, this is fundamentally
inaccurate. Farmers and most other business people do not act to minimize
costs but to maximize revenue subject to costs (i.e. profit), including a risk
threshold. Costs are both production costs and transaction costs, at the root
of which is uncertainty. Profit is a function of product prices, quantities sold,
and both production and transaction costs. Therefore, contractual arrange-
ments are chosen (if there is choice) subject to the welfareoutcomes of the
costs and volumes of production, prices negotiated (if there is negotiation),
and the transaction costs of alternative arrangements (if there are alterna-
tives). Thus, in choosing contractual arrangements to maximize profit subject
to idiosyncratic risk management preferences, for smallholder farmers
contract design is a multi-criteria decision problem involving trade-offs
(Abebe et al., 2013: 15).
Farmers costs
We have much more to learn about transaction costs. For example, Zanello
et al. (2014) analysed transaction costs in farmers market decision making
in Ghana using a distinction between different types of transaction costs
introduced by Key et al. (2000) and Bellemare and Barrett (2006):
Proportional transaction costs are transaction costs that vary with the
quantity traded. Often they are associated with the unit transport costs or
the time required to make a sale. Fixed transaction costs are independent
of the quantity traded and include the costs of seeking information on
prices, costs of setting up a sale transaction and monitoring costs (that is,
costs to ensure that the conditions of an exchange are met, for example
enforcing the payment schedule) (Zanello et al., 2014: 1227).
Their results of the analysis of marketing behaviour in Ghana were at

variance with results of other studies, leading them to conclude that factors
driving farmers decisions are likely to be significantly influenced by local
institutional settings in addition to types of crops, size of transactions, and
proximity to markets.
There is also potential for confusion when Barrett comments, Theprimary
theme in the literature on smallholder market participation is the importance
of transactions costs (Barrett, 2008: 310). Writers confuse the physical costs
of access to market with transaction costs. Admittedly, Coase (1937) did not
use the term transaction costs, but marketing costs but it is unhelpful
when Barrett writes that The transactions costs that have attracted most
attention by analysts are those associated with transport (Barrett, 2008: 310).
Ownership, or lack, of a means of transport to market donkey cart, bicycle,
motorbike, pickup truck is an important determinant of the ease of doing
business, but is conceptually distinct from managing the uncertainty that
is the root of transaction costs. In Norths terms, transport costs are trans-
formation costs or more commonly production costs rather than
transaction costs, and must be addressed by quite different sorts of inter-
vention and initiatives.
Overall, reducing transaction costs is a key focus for policy intervention.
Inaddition, interventions have been aimed at:
Farm level:
increasing input supplies of fertilizer and seeds;

stimulating the provision of credit;
reducing the costs of physical access to local markets;
organizing farmers.
Market level:
policies to stimulate increased trader competition;

integrating local and international markets.
As we come to consider market participation from a livelihoods perspective,

it will be seen that these approaches are not exactly people-centred. Barrett
himself draws attention to a number of key factors, consistent with the analyses
in Chapter 1. He poses the question of whether barriers to market partici-
pation are primarily the lack of individual smallholders privately held assets
or the institutional and physical infrastructure of the external environment:
Thisis an exceedingly important question that merits more attention from
researchers (Barrett, 2008: 314). However, it is one that is unlikely to generate
a single, simple answer.
Households and livelihoods

Sens entitlements
Besides economic modelling, Sens entitlement approach (Sen, 1981) provides
a way of considering rights to, and responsibilities for, natural-resources
management and, particularly, economic supplies to households:
Ownership relations are one kind of entitlement relations An

entitlement relation applied to ownership connects one set of ownerships
to another through certain rules of legitimacy. It is a recursive relation
and the process of connecting can be repeated
Entitlement relations accepted in a private ownership market economy

typically include the following, among others:
1. trade-based entitlement: one is entitled to own what one obtains by

trading something one owns with a willing party (or, multilaterally,
with a willing set of parties);
2. production-based entitlement: one is entitled to own what one gets by
arranging production using ones own resources, or resources hired
from willing parties meeting the agreed conditions of trade;
3. own-labour entitlement: one is entitled to own ones own labour
power, and thus to the trade-based and production-based entitle-
ments related to ones labour power;
4. inheritance and transfer entitlement: one is entitled to own what is
willingly given to one by another who legitimately owns it, possibly
to take effect after the latters death (if so specified by him).
These are some entitlement relations of more or less straightforward kind,

but there are others, frequently a good deal more complex. Forexample,
one may be entitled to enjoy the fruits of some property without being
able to trade it for anything else (Sen, 1981: 12).
Out of Sens work, and in many subsequent contributions, much has

been written about what has come to be known as the livelihoods approach
to poverty reduction. Essentially, the assets-based approach conceives five
classes of resources held at the individual, household, or collective levels,
depending on the type of resource, on which there is general agreement among
academics and practitioners (Donovan and Stoian, 2012). Nevertheless,
there is no single understanding of assets, and, in particular, economists
and anthropologists conceive them differently. What makes a livelihoods
approach distinctive is the centrality of people, the human relations to
productive assets through ownership and investment, and much-needed
multidisciplinary perspectives.
For smallholder farmers, the following asset types are likely to be important,
with particular emphasis on the social and human skills which have not been
given sufficient weight in traditional analyses:
Livelihoods assets
Natural assets:
land, water, livestock;

production technologies such as new varieties;
investments in resource conservation and management.
Human assets:
technical skills for production;

business and managerial skills.
Social assets:
networks and access to markets and information;

participation in collective activities associated with the economic

activities of production, processing, marketing;
participation in collective activities associated with democracy and
governance;
leverage from linkages with economic intermediaries.
Physical assets:
domestic and productive buildings and equipment;

tools and machinery.
Financial assets:
access to credit;
income benefit from product sales;
access to longer-term investments.
Although livelihoods studies are fundamentally socioeconomic, there

is benefit in re-envisioning the asset concepts from other perspectives, as
Guyer (1997) makes clear. In an analysis of rural education among indigenous
minorities in the Mexican state of Chiapas, a concept of cultural capital
hadparticular significance (Bourdieu, 1983; Bebbington, 1999). Attempts
havebeen made to reshape and expand the concept of social capital
(Pooleetal., 2013a), drawing attention to the interaction between cultural
assets and education and communication technologies, thus depicting the
key concepts for research not as a pentagon typically depicting five types of
asset, but as a hexagon that also includes cultural capital (Figure 2.1).
This amplified conception of social and cultural capital in the livelihoods
pentagon of assets is affirmed by IFAD in its Rural Development Report 2016
(IFAD, 2016): the report casts a spotlight on indigenous peoples and acknowl-
edges their unique characteristics and vulnerabilities:
Their traditional knowledge, holistic practices and production systems

both provide for sustainable management of resources and ensure that
biodiversity is maintained for future generations. Recognizing how
indigenous peoples have been able to make social capital, agriculture
and the environment work together over centuries is crucial to
an understanding of inclusive rural transformation, and offers an
opportunity to learn from their sustainable livelihood practices (IFAD,
2016: 338).
Other livelihoods-capital considerations

Besides ownership of and investment in assets, the relationship of people to
assets and the use of assets by people can be marked by other phenomena,
Food security and nutrition Housing and sanitation

Heath services Power and water
Formal education Telecommunications
Extension and skills Roads and bridges

Personal transport
Human Physical
Access to credit and Social cohesion
savings Networking
Risk management Ethnicity
Financial Livelihood Cultural
and diversification Traditional knowledge
assets
Incomes and
employment Collective organization
Migration and Equity community,
Natural Social
remittances gender, intergeneration
Access to public services
Access to land and water Advocacy
Sustainable management Civic participation
of natural resources Participation in
information society
Figure 2.1Livelihoods assets hexagon framework for agricultural development
Source: adapted from Poole et al. (2013a)
lesswell substantiated in the livelihoods literature, that are closely linked to

the dynamics of household management:
Investment. The anthropology of wealth is a counterpart to the economics

focus on assets and poverty (Guyer, 1997). Guyer points out the gap between
an anthropologists concern with dynamic resource management and allocation,
essentially accumulation, and the static nature of economic models which do
not show people investing in [assets]: maintaining, increasing, scheming, and
planning (Guyer, 1997: 119). Essentially, Guyer wants consideration of (ongoing
strategies of) investments as well as (starting) endowments, differentiating within
the household between men and women. Notwithstanding, changes in assets have
been explored more recently from a socioeconomic perspective, at household and
institutional level (Donovan and Stoian, 2012; Donovan and Poole, 2013, 2014,
2016; Poole and Donovan 2014). Investments in social relationships, which are
admittedly difficult to quantify, have insurance value as well as making an intrinsic
contribution to well-being. They are polysemic (have multiple meanings), as are
children who are consumption and investment assets, depending on generational
perspectives. Similarly, investments in health (through improved nutrition
and disease prevention), directly (through food and medicines) and indirectly
(through improved housing and sanitation), are at the same time consumption
assets, investment assets, and reduce vulnerability to shocks.
Interactions and trade-offs. Exercising choice between making investments in

new activities and pursuing only traditional activities involves potentialcosts.
At the simplest level, it could be the switch from subsistence food production
to commercial production. What is the opportunity cost of the project
activity? How has the relationship between subsistence/food prices and
prices of the new commercial products evolved? The demand for labour is
animportant element in the shift towards more intensive production of
higher-value products. Similarly, the increased cost of inputs and technology
for higher-value production will affect borrowing requirements, cash flows,
and other household spending decisions. There is a generational perspective
to the trade-offs: for example, children can be asked or compelled to work
in order to bring in immediate financial assets, or sent to school to enhance
long-term social capital.
Convertibility. Guyer (1997) also points out that assets are multifaceted; that is,
they can be put to more than one use. In addition, assets are also convertible,
financial assets being the most fungible: quickly convertible, for example, into
physical capital (equipment and housing), natural capital (land and livestock),
social capital (gifts and prestige goods), and more slowly convertible into human
capital through education. But financial assets are also the most vulnerable to
rapid depletion (loss of cash, loss of access to credit).
Asset erosion. It is possible that small producers are left impoverished from
shocks. Vulnerability and risk are critical factors which can lead to asset erosion.
Apart from household affairs like illness, accidents, and death, there are natural
disasters like floods and drought that can impact severely on thehousehold
economy. It maybe through individual misjudgements or unwise development
initiatives that farmers take credit that they cannot repay; maybe the market
collapses and the investments made in new opportunities become sunk costs,
i.e. costs that cannot be recovered. Investment by farmers in crop insurance is a
mechanism for avoiding massive losses by making relatively small expenditures
that in the best circumstances will not be recovered at least financially
but will reduce household vulnerability. Specific culture in the ethnographic
sense can be conceived of as an asset that confers stability and coherence, as
for example in ethnic-minority communities (Poole et al., 2013a). Cultural
change can erodesuch cultural capital. But cultural change can also build other
assets: adecline in traditional mores may erode social stability and investment
in female seclusion and consequent investment in marriage, butalso offer
new forms of investment, for example through girls education and female
employment even engagement in agribusiness marketing.
Sustainability. Assessing natural capital is important for considering environ

mental and other impacts and the continuity of an enterprise; an attempt
at environmental assessment can be made through investment in indicators
of natural capital (e.g. soil, water, and waste management), but this is a very
complex and specialist area of analysis. It is probably though qualitative data
collection that the long-term perspective of changes can be best assessed.
There is also a human, social, and economic dimension to sustainability.
Whereas interventions promoting new technology might achieve adoption

and sustainability within the short-medium term, say two to four years,
sustainability of initiatives to do with specific human skills and economic
organizations such as cooperatives are likely to take longer, say five years
or more, and therefore is not likely to be observable. Economic or business
sustainability will be significantly dependent on the external environment
over which smallholders have no control.
Targeting. There is a question about which smallholder households actually

benefit from external interventions. Furthermore, who is excluded? Are there
entry or participation thresholds in the project design? Does a given project
only help those smallholders who are better off and easier to help, or was the
capacity of the really poor smallholders to participate in markets enhanced,
irrespective of age, gender, education, and scale?
Asset-based approaches are now commonly linked to value chain
approaches, and many analytical tools blend the basic concepts. Guyer can be
cited again to orient the empirical work this book reports:
Since the sociocultural anthropology of the last 25 years is an anthro-

pology that has been increasingly focused on dynamics and history
(valuation rather than values, cultural construction rather than the
structure of culture), the study of assets would become not only the study
of the assets themselves, or of asset management (in the life-cyclical
sense) but of asset creation (in the active, historical sense). Both policies
and popular processes create assets (Guyer, 1997: 123).
Value chain thinking

Development of the chain concept
Value chain approaches have become the norm for market analyses and
market projects and interventions. The empirical work reported in this book
was conducted within a value chain framework (Morrison, 2010), and such
concepts are used in the analysis and conclusions. In explaining value chain
thinking, we note that there is a burgeoning literature on agri-food value
chains in developing and emerging markets that has matched the explosion
of interest in the value chain concept and value chain approaches to
development and poverty reduction in poorer countries since 2000. However,
not all things to do with value chains are new. The discussion that follows
draws on selected literature including a review published in the journal Food
Chain (Poole, 2013).
Application of the chain concept to agri-food systems has a number of
roots. As noted above, Coases seminal work in the 1930s (1937) that gave rise
to transaction-cost economics was, in fact, concerned with and used the term
marketing costs. He recognized that markets were coordinated not only by the
price mechanism in spot markets but also by strategic decisions of managers in
firms to either make or buy in terms of sourcing and distribution of products

and services. Under certain circumstances, efficient inter-firm linkages were
preferred over the integration of economic functions within a single firm, and
linkages or multiple links within a chain of transactions became a focus of

analysis. Thus it became evident that marketing chains should be considered
as a common phenomenon in industrial organization.
Similarly, as noted above, agricultural economists have long analysed
the efficiency with which products have reached markets in terms of prices,
margins, and costs. Concern beyond the price mechanism about vertical
coordination between agribusiness market actors was evident in the United
States in the 1960s. Concerns about market efficiency were succeeded by a
growing interest in the institutional environment and inter-firm contractual
arrangements through the lens of New Institutional Economics (Williamson,
1985; Coase, 1988; North, 1990).
The emergence from industrial organization of value chain analysis as
an analytical framework can be traced, inter alia, to Porters exposition of
competitive strategies (1985), which provided a tool to enable firms to look
beyond their own boundaries, to examine linkages with other organizations,
and to identify ways of creating and sustaining better business performance.
Porters contribution was to recognize the importance of the processes of
adding value to the flow of goods and services from suppliers through inter-
mediaries to final consumers in enhancing firm profitability. His focus on
creating and sustaining firm and national competitive advantages transformed
the economics of industrial organization into a more business-friendly
explanation of firm and industrial strategy (Porter, 1985, 1990). Themarriage
of chain perspectives on inter-firm organization with the insistence on value
addition for competitive advantage gave birth to the value chain concept
(Porter, 1985; Kaplinsky, 2000).
From a different school of thought, world-systems theory gave rise to
chain-type thinking in terms of international trade and global commodity/
value chains, focusing on the loci of power in chain management being
either buyer-led or supplier-led (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz, 1994; Gibbon,
2001, 2003). The French filire school (Griffon, 1989; Tallec and Bockel,2005)
developed a parallel tradition focusing on the efficiency of operations, flows
of resources, and interdependencies within vertical commodity chains.
Eachframework had something to offer and each something to learn (Raikes
et al., 2000).
As a result of the convergence of these threads, in the last decade,
value chains have become the dominant discourse of many governments,
international donors, NGOs, and research on rural markets in developing
economies (Humphrey, 2005). It is not possible or necessary to distil all
the literature into a single review, but a synthesis of the key concepts is
presented in Figure 2.2.
Terminology matters. Value chain approaches are interventions by public
sector and non-governmental organizations and initiatives by the private
Upgrading
Market functions
Primary
Actor assets,
supply
capabilities and
empowerment
External
environment
Institutions and
regulations
public, NGO
Chain governance and private
Lead firms sectors
Intra-chain Incentives and
Market power linkages constraints
Entry conditions
Distribution of
risks and rewards
Linkages and flows

Products and services
Agri-food
Finance and technology
demand
Information and reputation
Figure 2.2 Concepts underpinning the agri-food value chain

Source: adapted from Poole (2013: 200)
sector, to overcome chain constraints, align incentives, and promote develop

ment. Adefinition which will satisfy most analysts is:
a value chain comprises the linkages between actors and the flows of
products, services, resources and information among economic actors:
households, firms and other organizations such as cooperatives
Key features of value chain research are analyses of:
governance the formal and informal relationships (vertical and

horizontal) between chain actors, and the exercise of power, which
facilitate entry and shape risks and rewards;
upgrading value addition resulting from interventions and initiatives
to improve chain functions and actors capabilities and empowerment;
the distributional outcomes, primarily economic;
the influence of the external environment of politics, socioeconomics,
culture, and technology, and the role of salient public, private, and third-
sector organizations, and of formal laws, regulations, and standards and
informal norms of behaviour.
Value chain interventions are development activities targeted at specific

points in the chain, or even the whole chain, from production to consumption,
that aim to overcome imperfections in efficiency, equity, or some other
dimension.
Setting systems boundaries for value chain research has been necessary
to limit analysis to tractable questions and feasible empirics, and, conse-
quently, analyses have commonly been case studies, centred on business
dyads rather than whole chains. Thus, whole chain analyses have been
few. The study reported in IFPRI (2010) may be theacme of value chain
analyses, but employed a level of resources that would be unimaginable to
most researchers.
Recent literature on value chains for development

There is no single approach to value chains. Following Porter, the value
chain has been used as a conceptual framework for analysing participation,
governance, equity, and the outcomes of business activities thus organized.
NGOs have become a significant channel for linking poor people to markets
and, together with international donor-practitioners, have drawn on the value
chain approaches more commonly used in advanced economies and interna-
tional commodity exports. Thus, various tools have been developed to help
improve smallholder participation in markets, and these are targeted primarily
at projects and initiatives attempting to improve the situation of smallholder
producers and small enterprises in the value chain.
Beyond poverty reduction, the scope for value chain research extends to
a range of policy issues in economic growth and agricultural development.
Consideration of some of these is, at best, in its infancy: research and input
supply industries serving primary production; domestic staple foods as well
as exotic, niche exports; hunger, health and food safety; gender; climate and
environmental sustainability; carbon flows; water management; scalability of
interventions; labour and social responsibility; the public sector as an actor
within and without the chain; and state-building.
No feasible research can tackle all these issues, but still there are gaps:
Curiously, consumers are often not considered to be chain actors

(Hawkes, 2009). Where food consumption is an end in itself, as well
as a means to other ends such as employment creation and economic
growth, this is inexplicable.
Employment per se, as an important multiplier in economic development
in general and the agri-food sector in particular, has been strangely
neglected. For poverty reduction in rural areas where landless labourers
are often the most disadvantaged, like much of South Asia, this is even
more surprising.
Actually, food ends as nutrition, and there is an upsurge of global
interest in the impact of agri-food chains on nutrition and health
outcomes for the poor and the rich, the underfed and overfed,
developing and advanced economies, and cross-cutting contexts where
all these dimensions may coexist.
Recognizing that conflict is one of the major factors creating and

sustaining global poverty and inequality, building viable economic
activity in post-conflict situations has to be a focus for new research.
Analysis of the sustainability dimensions of value chains needs to
draw on the techniques of environmental impact life-cycle and analyses,
with carbon management being a priority.
Beyond pollution, agri-food waste and disease management can also
be added to the agenda for value chain analysis.
Chains are pathways through more general and enduring market systems.
They may come and go but rarely stay the same, and dynamic analyses are also
necessary, especially in fast-evolving consumer markets. Much research and
value chain analyses are no exception adopts a static case-study approach.
Research needs to capture the dynamic nature of markets: not just inter-
vention impacts over months, but changing supply and demand conditions
over years.
Returning to themes that are central to this book, on upgrading and
inclusion, three initial considerations must be made explicit: firstly, is partici-
pation in commercial markets always a desirable objective? Secondly, can
upgrading have the perverse effect of raising entry barriers and excluding the
poor whose improvement is being targeted? Questions of equality and gender
underlie this preoccupation. And thirdly, note that a given chain may be less
important to the actors themselves than to the keen researchers; peoples
livelihoods are diverse, and thus a given chain may be only one in a portfolio
of activities. Livelihood context matters.
This book follows two recent value chain publications and, it is hoped,
adds helpfully to the growing literature rather than duplicates existing efforts.
In their recent volume, Coles and Mitchell (2011: 15) set out an immodest
agenda: This book seeks to address one of the most intractable contemporary
development challenges what can the billion poorest people do to improve
their livelihoods and join the trend of rising prosperity in the developing
world? The answer given is, upgrading their position in a range of natural
resource-based value chains.
The other book is a synthesis, edited by the Overseas Development
Institute, London, of research that has emerged from a programme of the
International Development Research Centre, Canada, that aimed to integrate
poverty, gender, and environmental concerns into value chain research and
increase incomes for the rural poor in a sustainable manner. The research was
undertaken between 2007 and 2009, in South and East Asia (India, Nepal,
Vietnam, and the Philippines) and sub-Saharan Africa (Mali, Tanzania, and
Senegal), drawing on the experiences of farmers, development workers, and
policymakers from the South.
Upgrading
Different types of upgrading are commonly recognized: horizontal and vertical
coordination; doing different things functional upgrading; product and

process upgrading; and skills transfer inter-chain upgrading. A range of lessons
is derived concerning, inter alia:
the inappropriate imposition of structures from outside;

the existence of trade-offs between objectives;
the complexity of balancing costs and benefits of novel contracting;
whether responsive trading relationships which reduce vulnerability and
uncertainty non-financial benefits can coexist alongside imbalances
in market power;
specialization to reduce the costs and risks of functional integration;
the advantages and disadvantages of working closely with intermediary
firms;
the role of state intervention to overcome market failures due to
ineffective standards, lack of rural infrastructure, and costly logistics;
costs and benefits of certification;
the significance of price-quality disconnects for poverty and environ-
mental impacts;
the complexity of labour issues;
the advantages of inter-chain upgrading arising from economies of
scope.
The concluding chapter claims that our approach has been intensely
practical this book examines research-based evidence for the effectiveness of
upgrading interventions (Coles et al., 2011: pp. 2367). Itadds usefullytothe
theoretical literature on value chain analysis, but less on experiences of value
chain interventions. Perhaps the cases are little more than typical market
development interventions. One might have expected more on thecritical
role of human capacity building and on empowerment, which ismentioned
in a couple of places but tangentially, or apparently as an afterthought on
gender, but not as a fundamental element of the framework.
Participation: principles and determinants

There are three principal themes to the volume edited by Helmsing and
Vellema (2011). Firstly, on governance and inclusion: including the poorest in
poverty reduction interventions must be tested against the trade-offs and risk.
As is argued later, inclusion and exclusion are more usefully seen as processes
shaping how (rather than if) actors participate (Helmsing and Vellema,
2011:12). Some actors may be excluded or self-exclude from a particular
chain in favour of other activities and networks. Thus, targeting beneficiaries,
and the scope for upscaling successful interventions, become important policy
dilemmas, and voice should be given to the targets to consider strategic
choices such as whether or not to adopt production certification and product

standards. Moreover, contextual factors such as public policy and industry
organization are likely to mediate different welfare outcomes from the same
choice sets among value chain-driven intervention mechanisms. Cooperatives

are a favoured development approach, but the benefits of formal democratic
governance become attenuated by community mechanisms and hierarchical
arrangements as the need for scale and efficiency increases.
Including labour-market institutions within the value chain encompasses
stakeholders who are less visible than producer-entrepreneurs and downstream
firms. Yet employees may be among the poorest of the poor, and recent
research shows that the benefits of fair trade do not extend into the labour
market, at least in Ethiopia and Uganda (Cramer et al., 2014). Labour-process
theory integrates into value chain analysis the relations of bargaining power,
seasonality of rural activities and labour demand, the formalization and organi-
zation of contracts, and the establishment of pay rates and returns. Onewould
expect gender relations to be similarly incorporated, but this is not done here.
The importance of including the state as a principal actor in the chain, as
well as a proximate player in the external environment, is highlighted by the
case of the [semi-] liberalized Ghanaian cocoa sector. There, the state is an
intermediary which attenuates somewhat the market signals for social and
environmental issues.
Secondly, the emphases on embedding and business systems concern
behaviour as a function of the socio-cultural and political context, and the
interrelationships between, and contrasting incentives among, chain actors
and non-chain actors. Thus, embeddedness can be observed at the level of the
network or chain, the society, or some wider (geographic) notion of territory.
The contribution of business-systems theory is to recognize that even global
chains are embedded within specificities of territorial institutions, culture, and
industry. Within this view, a strong role is envisaged for the state in defining
pro-developmental institutions (rather than, say, the private sector as a facili-
tating agent), including the regulation and management of natural resources
and government support in case of shocks.
Power, politics, and profit distribution are features of business systems
that may or may not be aligned with incentives to participate or exclude
individual actors. They may entrench the economic positions of elites rather
than promote development by permitting or encouraging innovation and
competition. Alternatively, lead firms may condition business relationships in
a manner consistent with environmental and social responsibility.
Finally, for chain-based partnerships for development, the premise is
that access to assets is a necessary but not sufficient condition for escaping
poverty (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011: 15). First, partnerships are necessary
and are viewed as having horizontal and vertical dimensions, both within
the chain and also with actors from the wider business environment.
Newinstitutional relationships can help poor actors overcome the constraints
common to smallholder participation, such as lack of information, lack of
market alternatives, lack of finance, and small scale. Donors and NGOs may
intervene through narrowly defined projects at specific points in the value
chain but often ignore these wider partnership constraints. Second, having
achieved some measure of improved participation, the authors note that the
literature pays surprisingly little attention to issues of upscaling (Helmsing
and Vellema, 2011: 16).
Developing an integrative framework, rather than using a singular
(economic) conception of what a value chain is, allows diverse researchers
to reveal the different meanings and incentives found in local communities.
Aligning the incentives arising from alternative understandings is necessary to
formulate favourable conditions of participation for vulnerable groups and
hence poverty reduction.
This volume argues that the development impacts of inclusion of small

producers, local firms and workers in (global) value chains importantly
depends on two conditions: the terms of participation in the process
of inclusion and the degree of alignment of value chain logics with the
capacities of actors and the institutions embedded in territorial business
systems (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011: 18).
Much literature on value chains has not moved beyond case studies. In its
conceptualization, this book does. The multidisciplinary approach has yielded
important insights (something that this author has signalled elsewhere; Poole
et al., 2013b). Measured against the framework introduced above, there is
much work still to be done, and that is as it should be.
References
Abebe, G.K., Bijman, J., Kemp, R., Omta, O. and Tsegaye, A. (2013).
Contract farming configuration: smallholders preferences for contract
design attributes. Food Policy 40: 1424 <http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodpol.2013.01.002>.
Ayres, C.E. (1957). Institutional economics: discussion. American Economic
Review 47: 2627.
from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy 33(4): 299317 <http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.005>.
Bayudan-Dacuycuy, C. (2013). The influence of living with parents on
womens decision-making participation in the household: evidence from
the Southern Philippines. Journal of Development Studies 49(5): 641656
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.682987>.
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing
peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27(12):
20212044 <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7>.
Becker, G.S. (1976). Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: economics and
sociobiology. Journal of Economic Literature 14(3): 817826.
Bellemare, M. and Barrett, C.B. (2006). An ordered tobit model of market partici-
pation: evidence from Kenya and Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 88: 324337 <http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00861.x>.
Bennett, F. (2013). Researching within-household distribution: overview,

developments, debates, and methodological challenges. Journal of Marriage
and Family 75(3): 582597 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12020>.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital, in J.C. Richards, ed., Handbook of Theory

and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, Greenwood Press.
Coase, R.H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica 4(November): 386405.
Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics
3(October): 144.
Coase, R.H. (1988). The Firm, the Market and the Law. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Coles, C. and Mitchell, J., eds (2011). Markets and Rural Poverty: Upgrading
in value chains. London and Ottawa, Earthscan and International
Development Research Centre.
Coles, C., Mitchell, J., Owaygen, M. and Shepherd, A. (2011). Conclusions, in
C. Coles and J. Mitchell, eds, Markets and Rural Poverty: Upgrading in value
chains, pp. 235260. London and Ottawa, Earthscan and International
Development Research Centre.
Commons, J.R. (1934). Institutional Economics: Its place in political economy.
New York, Macmillan.
Cramer, C., Johnson, D., Oya, C. and Sender, J. (2014). Fairtrade, Employment
and Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia and Uganda. Final Report to DFID, April.
London, SOAS, University of London.
Dauphin, A., El Lahga, A.-R., Fortin, B. and Lacroix, G. (2011). Are children
decision-makers within the household? The Economic Journal 121(553):
871903 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02404.x>.
DFID (2013). Market Systems Development Platform - April 2013. Annex A : Extract
from the Market Systems Development Platform Business Case. Intervention
Summary. London, Department for International Development (DFID).
Donovan, J. and Poole, N.D. (2008). Linking Smallholders to Markets for
Non-traditional Agricultural Exports: A review of experiences in the Caribbean
Basin. Inputs for strategy formulation by EU-ACP All Agricultural Commodities
Programme. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 2. Rome, FAO. Retrieved 28 March
2017, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/caribbean/
FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_No_2_1_.pdf.
Donovan, J. and Poole, N.D. (2013). Asset building in response to value chain
development: lessons from taro producers in Nicaragua. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11(1): 2337 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14735903.2012.673076>.
Donovan, J. and Poole, N.D. (2014). Changing asset endowments and
smallholder participation in higher value markets: evidence from
certied coffee producers in Nicaragua. Food Policy 44: 113 <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.010>.
smallholder participation in higher-value markets: evidence from certied-
coffee producers in Nicaragua, in A. Devaux, M. Torero, J. Donovan and
D. Horton, eds, Innovation for Inclusive Value Chain Development: Successes
and challenges, pp. 93126. Washington, DC, International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
Donovan, J. and Stoian, D. (2012). 5 Capitals: A tool for assessing the poverty
impacts of value chain development. Technical Series 55, Rural Enterprise
Development Collection no. 7. Turrialba, Costa Rica, CATIE. Retrieved

28 March 2017, from http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/5-
capitals-tool-assessing-poverty-impacts-value-chain-development.
Dorward, A.R. and Poole, N.D. (2004). Functioning of Markets and the Livelihoods
of the Poor. Making Markets Work Better for the Poor. Proceedings of the
Inception Workshop, November 2003. Hanoi, Asian Development Bank.
Doss, C. (2013). Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in
developing countries. World Bank Research Observer 28(1): 5278.
Gereffi, G. and Korzeniewicz, M., eds (1994). Commodity Chains and Global
Capitalism. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.
Gibbon, P. (2001). Upgrading primary production: a global commodity chain
approach. World Development 29(2): 345363 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0305-750X(00)00093-0>.
Gibbon, P. (2003). The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the global
commodity chain for clothing. World Development 31(1): 18091827
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.002>.
Griffon, M., ed. (1989). Economie des filires en rgions chaudes. Formation des
prix et changes agricoles. Actes du Xeme sminaire dconomie et de sociologie,
1115 septembre. Montpellier, France, CIRAD.
Grossbard, S. (2010). Independent Individual Decision-Makers in Household
Models and the New Home Economics. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5138. Bonn,
Germany.
Guyer, J.L. (1997). Endowments and assets: the anthropology of wealth and
the economics of intrahousehold allocation, in L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott
and H. Alderman, eds, Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing
Countries: Models, methods, and policy, pp. 112125. Baltimore and London,
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J. and Alderman, H., eds (1997). Intrahousehold Resource
Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, methods, and policy. Baltimore and
London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: the institutional
foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, OUP.
Harper, M., Belt, J. and Roy, R., eds (2015). Commercial and Inclusive Value
Chains. Rugby, UK, Practical Action Publishing.
Hawkes, C. (2009). Identifying innovative interventions to promote healthy
eating using consumption-oriented food supply chain analysis. Journal
of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 4(3/4): 336356 <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/19320240903321243>.
Helmsing, A.H.J. and Vellema, S., eds (2011). Value Chains, Social Inclusion and
Economic Development: Contrasting theories and realities. London, Routledge.
Humphrey, J. (2005). Shaping Value Chains for Development: Global value chains
in agribusiness. Eschborn, Germany, GTZ.
IFAD (2016). Rural Development Report 2016: Fostering inclusive rural
Transformation. Rome, United Nations International Fund for Agricultural
Development. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from https://www.ifad.org/
ruraldevelopmentreport.
IFPRI (2010). Pulses Value Chain in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for
enhancing exports. Working Paper. Washington DC, International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Jones, W.O. (1974). Regional analysis and agricultural marketing research in

tropical Africa: concepts and experiences. Food Research Institute Studies
13(1): 328.
Kaplinsky, R. (2000). Spreading the gains from globalisation: what can be learned
from value chain analysis. IDS Working Paper No. 10. Brighton, Institute of
Development Studies.
Key, N., Sadoulet, E. and de Janvry, A. (2000). Transactions costs and agricul-
tural household supply response. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
82: 245259 <https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00022>.
Li, L. and Wu, X. (2011). Gender of children, bargaining power, and intra-
household resource allocation in China. Journal of Human Resources 46(2):
295316 <http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/jhr.46.2.295>.
Lundberg, S., Romich, J.L. and Tsang, K.P. (2009). Decision-making by children.
Review of Economics of the Household 7(1): 130 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11150-008-9045-2>.
Marion, B.W. and NC117 Committee (1986). The Organization and Performance
of the US Food System. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books.
Morrison, J.A. (2010). Brief guide prepared in support of capacity development
workshops on the implementation and use of value chain studies approaches for
policy analysis. Rome, UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Poole, N.D. (2010). From marketing systems to value chains: what havewe
learnt since the post-colonial era and where do we go? In H. van Trijp and
P. Ingenbleek, eds, Markets, Marketing and Developing Countries: Where we
stand and where we are heading, pp 1822. Wageningen, the Netherlands,
Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Poole, N.D. (2013). Value chain perspectives and literature: a review. Food
Chain 3(3): 199211 <https://doi.org/10.3362/2046-1887.2013.019>.
Poole, N.D. and de Frece, A. (2010). A Review of Existing Organisational Forms of
Smallholder Farmers Associations and their Contractual Relationships with other
Market Participants in the East and Southern African ACP Region. EU-AAACP
Paper Series. No. 11. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/
templates/est/AAACP/eastafrica/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_No_11_1_.pdf.
Poole, N.D. and Donovan, J. (2014). Building cooperative capacity: the
speciality coffee sector in Nicaragua. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing
and Emerging Economies 4(2): 133156 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JADEE-01-2013-0002>.
Poole, N.D., Alvarez, F., Vazquez, R. and Penagos, N. (2013a). Education for
all and for what? Life-skills and livelihoods in rural communities. Journal
of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 3(1): 6478 <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/20440831311321656>.
Poole, N.D., Chitundu, M. and Msoni, R. (2013b). Commercialisation: a
meta-approach for agricultural development among smallholder farmers
in Africa? Food Policy 41(August): 155165 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodpol.2013.05.010>.
Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York, Macmillan.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York, Macmillan.
Raikes, P., Jensen, M.F. and Ponte, S. (2000). Global commodity chain analysis
and the French filire approach: comparison and critique. Economy and
Society 29(3): 390417 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085140050084589>.

Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An essay on entitlements and deprivation.
Oxford, Clarendon.
Tallec, F. and Bockel, L. (2005). Lapproche filire: analyse fonctionelle et identifi-
cation de flux. EASYPol Prsentation Thmatique Gnrale Module 043. Rome,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
The Springfield Centre (2008). Perspectives on the Making Markets Work for the
Poor (M4P) Approach. Berne, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SDC. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from http://www.value-chains.org/dyn/bds/
docs/681/Perspectives%202008.pdf.
The Springfield Centre (2015). The Operational Guide for The Making Markets
Work for the Poor (M4P) Approach. London/Berne, Funded by Swiss Agency
for Development and Cooperation and Department for International
Development. Retrieved 22 May 2017, from http://www.enterprise-
development.org/wp-content/uploads/m4pguide2015.pdf.
Tincani, L. (2012). Resilient Livelihoods: Adaptation, Food Security and Wild
Foods in Rural Burkina Faso. Unpublished PhD. London, SOAS, University
of London.
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implica-
tions. London, Macmillan.
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York,
Macmillan.
World Bank (2016). Doing Business 2017: Equal opportunity for all. Washington,
DC, World Bank Group. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.
doingbusiness.org/.
World Bank Group (2016). Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016:
Comparing Regulatory Good Practices. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Retrieved 28March 2017, from http://eba.worldbank.org/~/media/WBG/
AgriBusiness/Documents/Reports/2016/EBA16-Full-Report.pdf.
Zanello, G., Srinivasan, C.S. and Shankar, B. (2014). Transaction costs,
information technologies, and the choice of marketplace among farmers
inNorthern Ghana. Journal of Development Studies 50(9): 12261239.
CHAPTER 3
Financial services
for agricultural smallholders
This chapter discusses finance, which is one of the biggest barriers for smallholder
farmers wishing to engage in markets. On the one hand, farmers can easily fall into
debt; on the other, it is difficult for farmers to access financial capital to expand
production and marketing. The chapter reviews diverse and innovative forms of
financing that can improve services in many circumstances.
The transaction costs introduced in Chapter 2 are found to be significant in the
delivery of financial services. We deepen the discussion of the behavioural features
of financial markets at the heart of which are informational problems: lack of good
information increases financial risks. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
agricultural development strategies that can link credit provision with the delivery
ofother forms of market development support in ways that reduce risks for lenders and
stimulate agricultural production and marketing. A final caveat is that implanting
sustainable models of integrated agricultural development services can take years.
Keywords: agricultural finance, credit, transaction costs, information,

behaviour, risk
Background
The role of finance
Looking back to the early post-colonial era of the 1950s and 1960s, many inter-
national organizations and governments in developed and developing countries
considered that the prevailing markets for agricultural finance were a constraint
to boosting the productivity of the rural sector and to fostering the adoption
by farmers of new technologies and inputs. Traditional, and often long-
standing, systems of finance were considered to be exploitative and inefficient.
Theprovision of credit would help to overcome the key constraints.
Views about market performance in those days owed more to preconcep-
tions than evidence at least on the output side (Southworthetal.,1979;
Holtzman, 1989). Nevertheless, research did identify practices that damaged
agricultural development. For example, Crows study of the rice trade in
Bangladesh uncovered complex market structures and interrelationships
between growers and traders who were often moneylenders (Crow, 1989). Crow
considered credit to be pivotal to understanding the operations ofthe rice
market. Interest rates were largely implicit but very high into thehundreds
of per cent and commissions had to be paid by farmers before credit could
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.003
be obtained. The commission agents were identified asthe foci of market

power. Of particular interest to food policy analysts was the impotence of
the government of a food-scarce country in attempting to influence producer
returns and hence alter the incentives to increase production for the market
and so promote national food security. Thesystem of dadon forward sales
as a means of financing production by farmers provided `bonded suppliers
for the market participant, thereby securing rice supply sources at favourable
terms, and assisted in creating personal andlong-term market relationships.
Crow found that millers also enjoyed a high degree of market power, to the
extent that they could even hold up government rice policy until it changed
in their favour; that is, until the government, in the interests of somehow
getting supplies moving through the system to assist national food security,
was forced to alter its buying policy in favour of the millers.
Officials were found to actually collude in the circumvention of government
policy by diverting public rice supplies to private markets. According to Crow
(1989: 217), any policy which tends to stabilize prices may be expected to
reduce returns to a section of the trading community. Hence it was in the
millers interests to undermine the success of the formal supply channel.
Thehidden vertical relationships concentrated market power among a
merchant elite who definitely were not price takers, but who exerted consid-
erable market power through interlocked markets the power of merchants
and landlords as the main suppliers of credit (Crow, 1989; 222).
Such analyses, critical of often informal and potentially exploitative
financial markets for smallholder production, raised many questions about
how credit relations affected poor farmers and food-security objectives.
Accordingly, many governments addressed market failures by intervening
in credit provision by limiting interest rates, allocating lending quotas for
poor farmers to formal finance institutions, launching and providing capital
to agricultural banks and other rural credit institutions such as coopera-
tives with specific responsibilities to lend to farmers, providing the lending
incentive of credit guarantees against loan defaults, and softening terms in
cases of agroecological or economic shocks. Finally, attempts were made to
make illegal the sort of informal moneylending practices identified by Crow
in Bangladesh.
But farmers need for finance was more complex than could be solved by
a cheap loan and benign regulation. The wider financial environment and
the delivery systems for credit were also found to be complex. Government
intervention in credit, like that in many other markets, was often costly and
ineffective. Lending was often politicized and went to the less-poor farmers.
Two important structural issues associated with credit arrangements were
that lending was often linked to technology that was inappropriate for the
poorest, and provision of credit was not accompanied by the provision of
other financial services necessary to meet the complex needs of smallholders.
Funds lent to farmers were often diverted to other uses, and poor loan-
repayment rates contributed to the financial failures and withdrawal of state
FINANCIAL SERVICES FOR SMALLHOLDERS 67
organizations from credit markets. State failures led to reduced intervention

in markets becoming one element of more generalized structural adjustment
policies (Poole et al., 2013).
At the same time, international commodity agreements had been

established between growers and buyers of commodities like coffee and
cocoa which were intended to manage markets and reduce risks incurred
throughout the chains through the management of quotas and the buffer
stock programmes. But both the International Coffee Agreement and the
International Cocoa Agreement of the 1970s failed in their objectives to
stabilize prices (Traor, 2009). As the agreements broke down, the divergence
of prices between newlycompeting countries resulted in smuggling of
commodities and in greater market instability. This caused an increase in
and the transfer of price and market risks from parastatal commodity boards
to the millions ofsmallholder producers.
Newer financial movements

Informal financial provision through friends, neighbours, family, small
retailers and traders, and, increasingly, remittances from migrants, has
been ever-present. From the 1980s, other finance movements emerged.
Donorsand NGOs seeking to fill the finance gap left by the state addressed
the needs of the poor through more carefully designed programmes of
microcredit provision. Loan performance was monitored, repayments were
small and regular, the savings function was linked to lending and terms
were enforced. Group lending or rather lending to individuals organized in
groups proved to be a major innovation, avoiding problems of collateral.
Collective responsibility was a means of utilizing peer pressure to effect
joint liability and overcome the problems of information asymmetries and
the transaction costs of reaching many small borrowers. The Grameen Bank
in Bangladesh, which started in 1976, has been the most influential and
successful organization in microcredit and, subsequently, the provision of
broader and more flexible financial services microfinance. Latterly, the
exploitation of mobile telephony to manage payments between financial
institutions and among individuals has become widespread, particularly
inAfrica.
The microfinance movement has not resolved all the problems of lending
and the provision of other financial services to small farmers. Formal systems
still suffer from the weaknesses of high cost, low return, limited reach, and
lack of knowledge about farmers requirements. Specialized agricultural banks
such as NATSAVE in Zambia continue to operate, more or less successfully.
NGOs have found new ways to channel donor finance to the poorest. Other
credit institutions such as savings and credit cooperative organizations act as
conduits for public finance directed towards the poorest. Thus, there is a wide
range of approaches, as summarized in the typology of financial institutions
shown in Figure 3.1.
Increasing formality
Informal Formal
Member-based NGOs
organizations financial
organizations
and individuals institutions
Moneylenders Rotating Cooperative financial Non-bank financial State-owned

savings and institutions institutions banks
Savings credit
collectors associations Caisses Development Rural banks
Villageoises organizations
Friends and Accumulating dpargne et de Specialized
family savings crdit autogres microfinance
and credit banks
Commercial associations Financial service
traders and associations Commercial banks
value chain International donors
stakeholders Self-help groups
Figure 3.1 Spectrum of financial services providers

Source: adapted from Helms (2006)
Finance and transaction costs

As we noted in Chapter 2, transaction cost economics (TCE) is an approach
to the conceptualization and analysis of institutional arrangements or the
diverse forms of contracting governing economic exchange that evolve
(or arechosen) in order to reduce transaction costs. Farmers and most other
business people do not act to minimize costs but to maximize revenue
subject to costs (i.e. profit), including a risk threshold. This risk element is
embedded within the calculations and strategies of smallholder farmers and is
hugely important in making their production and marketing decisions and
in seeking the finance that is often necessary to take advantage of business
opportunities.
Information challenges in financial services provision

Since the financial crash of the mid-2000s, the financial services industry
in advanced economies has been criticized for many failures, including self-
serving, irresponsible lending and exploitation of borrowers. In developing
economies, it is understandable that farmers are averse to borrowing when
the risks may lead to severe indebtedness, bonded labour which is akin to
slavery, and high rates of suicide. A certain level of risk aversion is inevitable
and rational. Costs of poor services are also borne by financial intermediaries
and other providers who have lost capital through ill-advised lending and
irrecoverable loan portfolios.
It is pertinent to consider the fundamental challenges in delivering financial
services which are rooted in common behaviour patterns.
Two specific examples of behavioural problems are rooted in asymmetric
information, where one party to a transaction has more information about
market characteristics than another. Moral hazard is the first, for which a
definition (derived from Investopedia, undated) is: the risk borne by one party to
a transaction that another party to the transaction has not entered into the contract
in good faith, and/or has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities
or credit capacity, and therefore may take unusual risks in an attempt to earn a profit.
In a lending context, moral hazard refers to a tendency by borrowers who
have secured finance to fail to protect themselves against risk, trusting rather
in the services and possible payouts than prudent risk-reducing behaviour.
Similar phenomena are commonly observed in an insurance context.
A second, related phenomenon is adverse selection, which occurs where
there is a tendency for one party to a transaction, usually the buyer of goods
or services, to be among those people who engage in less prudent behaviour.
Asymmetric information is implicated again, where one party usually has a
greater awareness and understanding of the goods or services being bought and sold,
and can exploit the other party. For example, those seeking financial services
may be those potential borrowers who do not take sensible precautions against
risks or the suppliers of poor-quality goods and services where the quality
cannot be easily verified, at least until after the transaction is completed.
Thus, these problems where one party to the transaction has better
knowledge about the goods, services and likely reactions of market participants,
can be considered information failures, and give rise to behaviouralproblems,
essentially of cheating. Transaction-cost economics focuses on these problemsof
information, uncertainty, and behavioural patterns in markets.
Principal-agent terminology can also illuminate contractual difficulties.
Information and behavioural problems afflict the less well-informed partner,
who is often the principal, in seeking reliable buyers and sellers, trustworthy
recipients, and sustainable businesses (i.e. agents). Assessing creditworthiness,
monitoring financial relationships, ensuring compliance with rules, mediating
and sanctioning cases of failure and default are all costly business activities
in terms of time, management worry, and actual financial expenditure.
Thus, firms incur transaction costs of mitigating the uncertainty created by
information and behavioural problems, which eat away at a firms profitability.
The total of normal costs of production or service provision plus transaction
costs can be so high, as is often the case when transacting with many
small-scale enterprises, that transactions do not happen. This is market failure.
Institutional economics, of which transaction-cost economics is a branch,
attaches importance to the provision of information and the formulation of
rules and norms of behaviour or institutions which reduce incentives for
behavioural problems and so lower transaction costs.
The informational problems in markets that apply clearly to the provision
of financial services have the following implications:
In a world of imperfect information, and thus increasing uncertainty,

transaction costs that individuals and firms incur increase, driving a
wedge between total costs and profits.
At some high level of uncertainty, total costs rise to a level too high for
transactions to take place and the market fails.
The provision of information and development of market institutions
reduce transaction costs, shifting total costs from ab to cd (seeFigure3.2),

and enable more business to take place.
Institutions can be strengthened by formulating product standards,
specifying clear contractual arrangements, informally by increasing
trust through repeated successful dealings, and formally by strength-
ening judicial procedures.
Figure 3.2 depicts the impact of informational problems on costs and
profits. As uncertainty increases, transaction costs rise, and drive a wedge into
the margin between the cost of production and the sales price of a good or
service. In effect, the total costs of production and transaction costs rise, eating
into the real profits of the seller. At some high level of uncertainty, the total
costs of producing and transacting business exceed the benefit or profits, and
it isno longer worth the seller engaging in business. Institutional mechanisms
such as credit guarantees, clear contracts, and sound enforcement practices
which provide information or reduce risk can lower transaction costs. Such
mechanisms effect a shift in the cost curve from ab to cd (see Figure 3.2) and
make business profitable beyond the earlier point of uncertainty and market
failure. In short, reducing uncertainty increases the likelihood of successful
buying and selling.
Market failure b
Successful transactions
d
Sale price
Provision of
Margin Profit information and
Total market institu-
Transaction costs tions reduces
costs transaction
costs
Cost of
production a c
Increasing uncertainty
Figure 3.2Depicting transaction costs

Source: author
As Douglas North said:
Institutions exist to reduce the uncertainties involved in human

interaction The costliness of information is the key to the costliness

of transacting, which consists of the costs of measuring the valuable
attributes of what is being exchanged and the cost of protecting rights
and policing and enforcing agreements. These measurement and
enforcement costs are the sources of social, political, and economic
institutions (North, 1990: 257).
Challenges for rural enterprises

Commonly, there is failure in financial markets to deliver services to poor
people for good reasons of information, scale economies, and institutional
barriers:
The costs of acquiring information about the creditworthiness of

borrowers are high.
Loans are likely to be small, costly to administer, and relatively unprofi
table for the lender.
Risks of low repayment are high because of the uncertain nature of
farming and other rural enterprises.
Collateral is often absent where enterprises are small and individuals have
limited capital and insecure property rights to resources such as land.
The financial culture and services are rudimentary, and loans are not
often linked with savings and risk management.
Like other natural resources-based industries, farming generally is a risky

enterprise, and rural households usually maintain a diverse range of livelihood
activities as a risk management strategy. Besides crop, livestock, and tree
production, rural people engage in off-farm employment and migration, both
of which, together with savings, can provide resources for household expenses
and capital for farming enterprises. Development of rural enterprises often
requires external finance and can be achieved through different means, such
as increasing farm productivity by intensification of technology, expansion of
scale of production, and diversification of farm activities.
Farming presents particular financing problems. Farming is subject to
asynchronous costs and returns: for example seasonality in, and lags
between, the need for inputs and the sale of outputs, giving rise to highly
significant gaps between incurring costs and receiving returns. For perennial
activities such as tree crops and large livestock, this gap is more critical than
for annual crops and small livestock, which turn over within a year. Farmers
are also subject to individual or idiosyncratic risks and shocks, and covariant
risks, which are those shared by a group, such as drought and flood. Farming
households also have both ongoing livelihood expenses such as consumption
requirements few rural households are self-sufficient in food rents and
school fees. Both farming and off-farm enterprises often require lumpy
expenses, such as investment in new technology tools and machinery and

new productive assets such as land, livestock, and trees.
Risk in agriculture and the rural economy

Hardaker et al. (2004) have written extensively about risk in agriculture.
Drawing on this work, AAACP (All African Caribbean Pacific Agricultural
Commodities Programme) research reports on risk management in Small
Island Developing States in the Caribbean and the Pacific (Angelucci and
Conforti, 2009), and in Fiji specifically (Veit, 2009), refer to a series of different
types of risk that affect farming households. These can be summarized as:
price risk a sudden unanticipated change in input and/or output prices;

production or yield risks arising from natural hazards such as sudden
agro-climatic shocks and disease that affect the quantity and/or quality
of output of crops, tree products, livestock;
asset risks associated with theft, fire, and other types of loss or damage
to equipment, buildings, and other assets;
institutional risk resulting from changes in national and international
policies that affect imports, exports, and standards;
market-structure risk changes in the concentration of market power
along a value chain, particularly associated with the strategies of large
buyers and sellers;
financial risk arising from unexpected changes in the cost of capital,
exchange-rate fluctuations, or disruptions in the ability to access credit
and/or equity losses;
human or personal risk idiosyncratic or individual risk arising from
household illness, injury, or death.
It is also timely to consider climate-change effects. While evidence

for the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic carbon emissions
causing global warming is almost overwhelming, there are still elements of
uncertainty (uncertain knowledge about climate change) and risk (uncertain
consequences about climate change which affect farmers decision-making
processes, in terms of the scale of loss and the probability of loss occurring).
It seems inevitable that farmers will increasingly have to incur extra costs to
adapt to, and mitigate the effects of, climate change. The precise locational
effects are much less certain and create further informational problems for
financial services providers.
The financial challenges arising from rural enterprises such as farming do
not only affect individual farmers. When farmers organize collectively, for
example to form cooperatives, then the same challenges are repeated but are
magnified. These are not only a matter of scale, arising from the sum of many
individuals risks, but are also due to an increase in the scope of risks from the
more complex form of business organization that a cooperative represents.
The multiple functions that were mentioned in Chapter 1 give rise to risks
associated with input supplies, accumulation of farmers products of crops

and livestock, plus, often, processing, manufacturing, and sale of transformed
products. To this can be added the provision of technical servicesas well
as financial services to members, and finally the need for more sophisti-
cated forms of business governance often participatory and executive
management.
Financial innovations for farming

Supply of financial services
Despite or perhaps because of these challenges, innovations in financial
services and in forms of delivery are taking place, with different sources of
capital becoming available:
Leveraging equity. Pretes (2002) work is not so new, but he publicized the Village
Enterprise Fund, a US NGO in East Africa, using equity-based microfinance to
support small business start-ups and facilitate the growth stage of the business.
He showed how start-up grants and equity finance are useful and appropriate
additions to the more common loan-based approaches.
Using remittances. According to Sutherland (2013), recent data show that

remittances from migrants earnings constitute a major and irreplaceable
flow of resources approaching $500 bn per annum, with around 250 million
migrants financially supporting 1 billion people in countries of origin.
Finance and risk management. Angelucci and Conforti (2010) show how finance
is more than credit: financial management also involves identification and
management of risk. They showed how the provision of necessary insurance
can be hindered by a lack of credit and underinvestment in productivity
improvements. Also, market context matters: for Small Island Developing
States (SIDS) lack of demand due to small farming populations constrains
the development of appropriate insurance products work to which we will
return shortly.
Value chain links. Financing through supply chain contracts and the growing
focus on value chain management has opened new possibilities. As illustrated
by Miller and Jones (2010), value chain financing can be focused on chain
activities and linkages and complement conventional lending by being
embedded within other services, reflecting stakeholder participation in
terms of shared risks and returns. Since 2008 the United Nations World
Food Programme (WFP) Purchase for Progress (P4P) initiative has aimed to
provide a guaranteed market to smallholder farmers and at the same time
tolink farmers with commercial organizations that can provide the necessary
supports and services, including information technologies, to develop viable
agribusinesses (World Food Programme, 2016). Forward delivery contracts
from WFP reduce the risks to farmers who might otherwise avoid engagement
with markets. Governments often participate by creating a conducive business
environment. WFP build and coordinate strategic partnerships with all value
chain partners, including firms and other organizations such as AGRA, Bayer,
GrowAfrica, the International Finance Corporation, Rabobank, Syngenta,
WFP, and Yara International.

Private-sector contractual finance. Experience in Nigeria shows that the model
of linking value chain functions and partners can be formalized. McMahon
and Harrison (2014) explain how a commercial bank has engaged in a
smallholder financing scheme in Nigeria. The bank provides the agricultural
system with access to the finance and value chain relationships that are needed
for increased productivity. The key multi-actor partnerships are value chain
linkages with produce buyers, input providers, and smallholder cooperatives:
the bankprovides credit to farmers through the cooperatives of which they
are members; and an input supplier provides training and production services
including land preparation and high-yield seeds, technical advice, and
harvesting services. An essential link is that a milling firm provides a guaranteed
market outlet. The opportunity for the bank is to develop its own customer
base among the millions of rural people. Thecooperative is a fundamental link:
the risk of farmers side-selling produce to other traders is minimized by linking
services to farmer members within the approved cooperative organization.
Finally, compulsory crop insurance covers the cooperatives, members, and
hence the commercial partners, from the risk of natural disasters.
Social capital development. Sidib et al. (2014) showed how finance in Mali
has a wider social impact: the harvesting, processing, and marketing of
the West African shea industry is primarily in the hands of women, often
individually but also through collective organizations. An increase in working
capital enabled a cooperative to upgrade quality-control processes and expand
sourcing from members and also, increasingly, from non-members and
traders. At the same time, the business relationships between the cooperative
and local suppliers, and with financial services providers, were strengthened
and formalized, showing how access to external finance led to changes in the
cooperatives institutional structure and in arrangements with both internal
and external stakeholders. Similar results were found in the shea industry in
neighbouring Ghana, where value chain organization enabled new formal
contractual arrangements, shared investments, and quality improvements
(Kent et al., 2014).
Loan guarantees. In their review of publicprivate sector partnerships in Africa,
Poulton (2009) and Poulton and Macartney (2012) explored how different
forms of delivery have potential to alleviate binding constraints to investment
in agriculture by the private sector. Credit or loan guarantees which
constitute insurance for financial services providers are one such mechanism
that is becoming more widespread. A loan guarantee fund allows a financial
institution such as a small credit union to lend to riskier clients on the basis
that the risk of default is borne by a larger financial provider, say an investment
bank or public-sector authority, which assumes the debt obligation in case
of default. The latter allocates a sum ofmoney to the scheme and lends to
interestedsmall-scale finance institutions who may have better information
about borrowers but still cannot absorb the risk of default.
Linked services. taking a livelihood-capital perspective on finance, Donovan

and Poole (2014) argued that livelihood assets show complementarities and
trade-offs, and illustrate how financial capital underpins most or all of the
other forms of asset of coffee-growing smallholders in Nicaragua:
Financial capital is more than income or credit arrangements.
Workingfinancial capital underpins investment in other livelihood
assets, particularly natural and physical, such as fertilizer (for maintaining
natural capital) and agricultural equipment and roofing (for physical
capital). It is also an important entitlement mechanism to meet general
household expenses and other human capital-building pathways such
as educational expenses for children. Thus financial capital has two
important characteristics: it is a means to an end rather than an end in
itself; and it is fungible: actually it is a means to various ends. But while
the provision of credit is of primary importance, it is not a panacea
(Donovan and Poole, 2014: 12).
Other examples of publicprivate partnerships. The UK Enterprise Finance Guarantee
(EFG) is a loan guarantee scheme to facilitate lending to viable businesses
that have been turned down for a normal commercial loan because of a lack
of security or proven track record. The delivery ofEFG, including all lending
decisions, is fully delegated to the lender, while the government provides a
guarantee to the lender (see British Business Bank, undated). Under the Bank
of Englands scheme, Funding for Lending, banks and building societies may
borrow from the Bank of England at cheaper than market rates for up to four
years (UK Government, 2015). By lowering interest rates, financial institutions
increase access to credit and thus lending to businesses.
Novel sources of finance. Finally, new sources of finance are opening up: for
example, grants, loans, and equity from non-traditional sources. While these may
include remittances, they also include funding from foundations, philanthropic
capital, crowdfunding, impact investment, and patient capital.
Credit and other services to farmers

Miller and Jones (2010) have explained their understanding of what is meant
by a value chain approach to financing agricultural enterprises. They make
an important qualification about the potential the limited potential of
better financing to farmers. Finance alone is not enough, as we have seen with
collective organizations. Complementary or supporting services are necessary
to leverage the impact of efficient financing:
Even though finance is often a necessary requirement in successful value

chains, finance alone is generally not sufficient. The business development
services associated with value chains or market development may be

more important to success than the financial inputs. Being aware of the
gaps and opportunities in a value chain, and promoting partnerships
and ways to address hurdles that go beyond the capacity of the financial
institution to resolve can improve the results of the value chain partners
and those who finance them (Miller and Jones, 2010: 155).
New financing initiatives are needed, and new opportunities are continuing
to open up. In AAACP reports on the Zambian cassava sector, Poole identified
the diverse challenges (Poole, 2010; Poole et al., 2010):
Appropriate lending mechanisms to large private sector firms and to

smaller-scale processors are a challenge when lenders consider the
enterprise to be high risk and low potential reward. Innovative systems of
financing need to be employed to channel development funds to lending
organizations through competitive tendering. Firms and organizations
within the sector can engage in competitive tendering for grants and loans
for enterprise development maybe in partnership with supply chain stake-
holders New funding mechanisms are also contingent on two other
elements: adoption by producer organizations of a business structure that
exploits the potential of new-generation cooperative organization; and
innovative means of leveraging private-sector investment into collective
(probably community-based) organizations. Group lending offers partic-
ularly good prospects for generating rural enterprises. Such an approach is
a means of capitalizing forms of collective enterprise for rural processing
based on rural organizations which are most likely to be community-based,
or founded around some other collective entity or ideal like local faith
organizations. Thedevelopment of farmer organizations will continue
to depend on external players for investment, equity, management and
technological inputs. What is necessary is a realistic timeframe. Achieving
sustainability is a very long term process: if economic sustainability, or
organizational maturity means independence of outside agencies, then
considering the common trajectory of farmer collectives, such initiatives
may take years or decades to reach maturity ... (Poole et al., 2010: 223).
The need for new forms of financial delivery and the lack of interest
from the private sector so far suggests that the conditions of market
failure are present to justify carefully designed intervention and financial
innovation. There is scope for further research in delivery mechanisms
for this level of microfinance: new knowledge and evidence is needed
to design appropriate financing mechanism, particularly for delivery
of small-scale funds to grassroots organizations: micro-funding may
be up to $10000 for infrastructure for an individual processing plant.
Private-sector business-service firms (such as accountants) can be
invited by national banks and international financial organizations to
design and implement models of competitive tendering and challenge
fund approaches for micro-enterprise development. Similarly, private

investors can be invited to participate in micro-equity funds willing to
invest in such enterprises (Poole, 2010: 27).
References
Angelucci, F. and Conforti, P. (2009). Risk Assessment and Finance in the Fruit
and Vegetable Value Chain. Evidence from Small Island Developing States in
the Caribbean and the Pacific. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 6. Rome, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March
2017, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/pacific/
Angelucci, F. and Conforti, P. (2010). Risk management and finance along
value chains of Small Island Developing States: evidence from the Caribbean
and the Pacific. Food Policy 35(6): 565575 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodpol.2010.07.001>.
British Business Bank (undated). Understanding the Enterprise Finance
Guarantee. Retrieved 9 May 2017 from http://british-business-bank.co.uk/
ourpartners/supporting-business-loans-enterprise-finance-guarantee/
understanding-enterprise-finance-guarantee/.
Crow, B. (1989). Plain tales from the rice trade: indications of vertical
integration in foodgrain markets in Bangladesh. Journal of Peasant Studies
16(2): 198229 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066158908438390>.
smallholder participation in higher value markets: evidence from certied
coffee producers in Nicaragua. Food Policy 44: 113 <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.010>.
Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M., Anderson, J.R. and Lien, G. (2004). Coping with
Risk in Agriculture. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.
Helms, B. (2006). Access For All: Building inclusive financial systems. Washington
DC, Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, World Bank. Retrieved 09July
2014, from http://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Access-for-All-
Jan-2006.pdf.
Holtzman, J.S. (1989). Maddening myths of agricultural marketing in
developing countries. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing
1(2): 5562 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J047v01n02_05>.
Investopedia (undated). Moral hazard. Retrieved 9 May 2017, from http://
www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp.
Kent, R., Bakaweri, C. and Poole, N.D. (2014). Facilitating entry into shea
processing: a study of two interventions in northern Ghana. Food Chain
4(3): 209224 <http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/2046-1887.2014.022>.
McMahon, J. and Harrison, T. (2014). Collaborating for Smallholder Finance:
How is Stanbic closing the loop? Inclusive Business in Practice Case
studies from the Business Innovation Facility portfolio, Inclusive
Business Hub Team. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://api.ning.
com/files/poTC6m2b82oCVTyU-6XyzAWFttZzcEg98SWPbveUwwcfxHM-
Z4PVVjZNXnvHiyl3V4OfC4BYYLNMy80mcNyB7dEGItSoC73O/Deepdive_
Stanbic_HUB.pdf.
Miller, C. and Jones, L. (2010). Agricultural Value Chain Finance: Tools and
methods. Rome and Rugby, UK, FAO and Practical Action Publishing.

Poole, N.D. (2010). Zambia Cassava Sector Policy Recommendations in Support
of Strategy Implementation. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 16. Rome, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017,
from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/pacific/07_FAO_
AAACP_Paper_Series16_Recommendations_Zambia_Cassava_Strat.pdf.
Poole, N.D., Chitundu, M., Msoni, R. and Tembo, I. (2010). Constraints to
Smallholder Participation in Cassava Value Chain Development in Zambia.
EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 15. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/eastafrica/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_
No_15_Constraints_to_smallholder_participa__1_.pdf.
Poole, N.D., Chitundu, M. and Msoni, R. (2013). Commercialisation: ameta-
approach for agricultural development among smallholder farmers
j.foodpol.2013.05.010>.
Poulton, C. (2009). An Assessment of Alternative Mechanisms for Leveraging
Private Sector Involvement in Poorly Functioning Value Chains. EU-AAACP
Paper Series. No. 8. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
templates/est/AAACP/eastafrica/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_No_8_1_.pdf.
Poulton, C. and Macartney, J. (2012). Can publicprivate partnerships leverage
private investment in agricultural value chains in Africa? A preliminary
review. World Development 40(1): 96109 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2011.05.017>.
Pretes, M. (2002). Microequity and microfinance. World Development 30(8):
13411353 <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00044-X>.
Sidib, A., Vellema, S., Dembl, F., Tm, B., Yossi, H., Traor, M. and
Kuyper,T.W. (2014). Women, shea, and finance: how institutional practices
in a Malian cooperative create development impact. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability 12(3): 263275 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735
903.2014.909640>.
Southworth, V.R., Jones, W.O. and Pearson, S.R. (1979). Food crop marketing
in Atebubu District, Ghana. Food Research Institute Studies 17(2): 157195.
Sutherland, P.D. (2013). Migration is development: how migration matters
to the post-2015 debate. Migration and Development 2(2): 151156 <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2013.817763>.
Traor, D. (2009). Cocoa and Coffee Value Chains in West and Central Africa:
Constraints and options for revenue-raising diversification. EU-AAACP Paper
Series. No. 3. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
templates/est/AAACP/westafrica/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_No_3_1_.pdf.
UK Government (2015). 2010 to 2015 Government Policy: Business Enterprise.
Retrieved 9 May 2017 from https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/
making-it-easier-to-set-up-and-grow-a-business--6/supporting-pages/
getting-banks-lending.
Veit, R. (2009). Assessing the Viability of Collection Centres for Fruit and Vegetables
in Fiji: A value chain approach. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 7. Rome, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March
2017, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/pacific/

World Food Programme (2016). P4P Overview: Connecting Farmers to Markets.
Retrieved 28 March 2017, from https://www.wfp.org/purchase-progress/
overview.
CHAPTER 4
Risk management
for agricultural smallholders
Agribusiness involves risk. This chapter explores the concept of risk and considers
howagricultural smallholders manage in practice the different kinds of risks in
production and marketing, and how they cope with price variation. Contracts are one of
the most important mechanisms for reducing risk, but the terms of contracts will often
depend on the negotiating power of the stronger contracting party. We make the case
for governments to be involved in risk management in order to enhance the functioning
of markets. The provision of insurance is a common way of supporting businesses, and
is increasingly feasible in small-scale agricultural enterprise and marketing. Finally,
we comment on risk management challenges in different agricultural sectors.
Keywords: risk, coping strategies, transaction costs, cheating, insurance,

contracts, coordination, government
Introduction
The evolution of the food chain from a competitive industry charac-
terised by many participants at all levels to an increasingly integrated
system provides a unique risk management opportunity to those who
have market power. In the absence of effective intervention by public
institutions, highly integrated firms are able to transfer the majority
of unacceptable risk to the ends of the chain; in particular, to farmers,
ranchers and retail consumers While public policy intervention may
partially mitigate risk through a variety of programmes and regulations
designed to address risk symptoms, past and current policies have
generally failed to address a primary cause of the inequity in risk transfer
by not ensuring an adequate level of competition throughout the food
chain (Swenson, 2000: 657).
To begin this chapter with a quotation that criticizes the unfair balance
of risk in food chains makes a strong statement about where responsibilities
lie for the management of smallholder farmers problems. The discussion
of agricultural value chains has often touched questions related to the
risks involved in the transition to a new organization of the agricultural
production and distribution sectors. But with the notable exception of Jaffee
et al. (2008), few contributions to the literature have been explicitly devoted
to the issue of risk management within developing countries rural agricul-
tural and food chains. Given the adoption of closer forms of value chain
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.004
integration, simplisticsettings that consider natural environmental factors

such as weather, pests, and natural disasters as the major source of risk are no
longer adequate to represent the economic conditions of farming families in
developing countries. More market engagement means that other events are
becoming more relevant in determining the overall levels and types of risk
to which developing countries agricultural producers are exposed. These are
problems such as contract breaches by a contractual counterpart, disruptions
in transportation logistics, unpredictable changes in final demand due to
safety concerns of consumers, and the introduction of new standards required
to access rich consumer markets.
Some of the initiatives described at the end of the last chapter illustrate
how close contractual arrangements can facilitate the entry of farmers into
markets. How these arrangements work depends on how they are designed in
relation to sharing and reducing the risks that farmers are assume when they
engage in markets.
Siegel and Jaffee (2008) have made a valuable contribution to the analysis
of the problems of risk assessment and risk management in agri-food chains,
with the aim of developing an operational framework to analyse and manage
supply-chain risk. They borrowed extensively from the existing literature
onsupply-chain risk management (SCRM) and on the strand of development
literature that has been concerned with the concept of vulnerability.
SCRM sees the value chain as an economic framework or entity within
which firms and individuals interact in order to extract a premium over
production costs from the sale of a given product. The objective of SCRM
analysis is to identify and mitigate the major events that hinder the
objective of bringing the right products (quantity and quality), in theright
amounts,to the right place, at the right time, and at a competitive cost (Jaffee
et al.,2008: 5). The concept of vulnerability underlies risk. Vulnerability is
defined as the combined result of the probability of an event occurring and
of the economic damage that may derive from such an event. In SCRM,
vulnerability is not an individual or household characteristic but is taken
to be the vulnerability of the chain itself; that is, the possibility that the
chain might fail to bring the right product in the right quantities to the right
place at the right time and at a competitive cost. The management of risk in the
chain is seen from the perspective of a fully vertically integrated enterprise,
concerned with the risk of the disruption of the chain, with limited or no
attention to the distribution of risk among chain participants.
The issues discussed in this chapter are the same ones that inform SCRM,
but less at the level of the chain as a whole than at the level of chain partici-
pants. The questions are: how to define and identify the risks that are relevant to
small-scale farmers and entrepreneurs, how to analyse the available or potential
risk management tools, and how to suggest possible policy responses. First, the
focus here will be on price or market risk for agricultural producers, making
only passing reference, when deemed necessary, to the problem of managing
production risk, which has been more extensively covered in the literature.
Risk management for agricultural smallholders 83
Second, the problem of risk exposure and risk management will be

considered mainly from a micro perspective, that of the welfare of poor rural
households.
Here we will consider how risks can be identified and managed in rural
value chains, and who is affected in chains such as those for farm products.
The chapter draws substantially on the AAACP papers by Cafiero (2008) and
Conforti (2009).
Assessing risk in rural value chains

There are three conceptually distinct processes in the analysis of the welfare
consequences of residual risk exposure and of the potential welfare-improving
character of new public policies. If we take as given the organizational structure
of the value chain, the steps are: (a) identification of the subject exposed to
risk; (b) definition of the ex ante condition of risk exposure; and (c) assessment
of the potential welfare consequences of residual risk exposure, once the set of
possible private risk management actions by the chain participant have been
duly considered. Each of these analytic processes presents some difficulties,
which will be briefly described below.
The fundamentals: identifying and mapping risks in the chain

Siegel and Jaffee (2008) list all possible sources of risk potentially affecting agricul-
tural value chains. They identify seven categories: weather-related risks, natural
disasters (including extreme weather events), biology and environmental risks,
market-related risks, policy and institutional risks, logistics and infrastructural
risks, and management and operational risks. They then discuss each category
in some detail, from the perspective of the whole value chain.
This approach provides interesting information. However, listing the
potential sources of risk does not provide practical suggestions on which
kinds of policies might be more suitable to the objective of protecting the
interests of one or some of the various value chain participants. This is
because not all of the listed sources of risk will have the same relevance or
the same kind of implications for all participants.
Any shock that causes risk may hit one or more of the relevant links that
form the value chain. The consequences of the shock may then be partly or
entirely transferred to other agents within the supply chain. This depends
on the kinds of contractual and informal links existing between the different
agents. For an informed analysis of the consequences of risk exposure for
the various chain participants, each possible source of risk first must thus
betraced back to the locus where it hits the various chain functions involved.
Thenext step is to assess the extent of risk transmission occurring at each of
the links. Finally comes the question of evaluating how the risk affects the
welfare of the different chain participants.
Mapping the particular value chain helps to identify the relationships
between the persons or actors in the chain and the functions for which
they are responsible. Mapping also highlights the chain mechanisms that
link thevarious functions, and associates the chain functions to the links
wherethe risk is first likely to have an impact.
In mapping, the chain actors are classified in groups, such as households

that are poor, middle income, and rich. The chain functions are the traditional
ones identified in many chain analyses, namely: input provision, production,
trade, processing and manufacturing, retail, and consumption. Not all of these
functions will be relevant in all chains. Possible sources of risk are those already
identified, such as: weather, pests, and other natural phenomena; idiosyn-
cratic accidents involving injuries; illnesses; and domestic policy, international
policy, and generic micro- and macroeconomic shocks.
Before moving to a discussion of risk in actual supply chains, it is useful
to understand the process of risk management and the elements of a risk
management strategy that may be used to limit the negative consequences
of risky events on vulnerable people. Usually, a risk management strategy is
the combination of different actions which include a preliminary risk and
vulnerability assessment, and subsequent risk management choice, possibly
followed by monitoring and re-evaluation of the actions taken.
Risk assessment
Risk assessment implies identification of the possible risk-generating events,
quantification of the impact that each will have in terms of financial losses,
and association of a probability value to each of them. Even though precise
quantification of the extent of losses and the probability of the risk occurring is
virtually impossible, to have even a rough idea of their range can be extremely
important in defining the optimal risk management strategy.
One informative practice, common in financial investment and risk
management, is the process of risk layering, in which a probability distribution
of potential losses is formed. When the only dimension being considered is
the entity of the financial loss, irrespective of the event that might cause it,
the distribution will have the shape depicted in Figure 4.1. It can be seen that a
proportion of the risks involves smaller financial losses with a high probability
of occurring; usually these losses are absorbed by the person or firm affected.
This is the layer of retained risk, or the retention layer. Other layers of risk
are identified by choosing the levels of financial losses that separate the risk-
retention layer from the risk-transfer layer and this latter from the so-called
tail risk. This practice is useful in informing theprocess of risk management
through insurance, in that it allows for the identification and handling of
different types of risk:
the risk-retention layer corresponding to the small losses that the

individual or enterprise is willing to retain and cope with by bearing
thecost through managing their own resources and strategies;
the part of the intermediate financial losses that the enterprise might
want to insure against (the insurance layer); and
Probability
of loss
Retention layer
small losses entailed by

normal business activity,
normally borne by
farmers and firms
Insurance layer
losses large enough to
disrupt normal business
Tail risk
practices, but can be
pooled in an insurance unlikely but catastrophic
product and/or covariate events
that insurers are
unwilling to cover
Scale of loss
Figure 4.1 Risk layering
Source: author
the tail risk of unlikely but catastrophic losses which is the part that will
not be covered through formal insurance.
Despite its usefulness, the process of risk layering is rarely emphasized in

the agricultural economics literature, probably because of the difficulties posed
by the process of quantifying the extent of losses and the associated proba-
bilities, and also because of the limited diffusion of commercial insurance
in agriculture beyond advanced-economy countries. What makes the risk
layering process useful, however, is that it forces reflection on the cost/benefit
ratio associated with transferring the risk. In principle, any risk, no matter
how frequent, could be transferred but that would imply an unacceptably
high insurance cost. In addition, the welfare effect of highly frequent, small
losses may be limited and lower than the cost of transferring the risk to others,
which would imply excessive transaction costs for monitoring and assessing
the losses. Usually, self-insurance (a form of risk management) can take care
of such events efficiently, and victims of small risks can adapt their livelihood
strategies accordingly. However, self-insurance clearly has limitations and
more formal provision of insurance is increasingly considered to be valuable.
Thus, formal insurance is becoming an important factor in rural development
as a way of reducing poor peoples vulnerability to external risks and enabling
them to escape poverty traps.
Risk layering is a useful exercise, but quantifying losses and probabilities
associated with risky events is not easy in developing-country agriculture.
Anumber of interesting insights, however, arise from considering the
elements which can affect the size of each layer. The distribution of the
layers is primarily determined by the specific risks of each environment;
however, the market for services used by farmers and government policies
alsocontribute.
The retention layer. As retention-layer losses are frequent and of limited size,
in most rural contexts they are normally addressed through household
income diversification and consumption smoothing. Production variability
tends to offer a natural hedge to farmers, given the inverse relation observed
between prices and yields. Other key elements shaping theability of farmers
to retain losses individually are individuals access tothe agricultural services
market,such as credit and finance, storage andtransport facilities, and other
services, such as extension and technical assistance.
Through unintended consequences, policies also play a major part in
shaping the ability of farmers to retain risks. Price controls reduce the automatic
hedging offered by the inverse relation with quantities, and redistribute risk
rather than reduce volatility. However, where agriculture is widely supported
by public resources, as is the case in OECD countries, the risk-retention layer
will likely become large, as subsidies and protection will increase farmers
ability and willingness to retain individual risks directly. Indeveloping
countries, public support to agriculture is usually more limited, and this tends
to reduce the size of the retention layer, and to increase the need to resort to
informal mitigation and smoothing mechanisms.
The insurance layer. The insurance-market layer can be small in developing

countries: markets tend to be highly incomplete, just as those for other
agricultural services are. Agricultural support programmes can crowd out private
provision of insurance: subsidies increase the ability to retain risks individually,
and this undermines private incentives to purchase insurance. Premiums may
be too expensive for poor farmers, greater than the worst possible insurable
outcome, and therefore not a prudent strategy. Poverty may also imply a high
rate of discount on the future, reducing the willingness to purchase insurances;
and lack of understanding about risky events mayprevent farmers from making
reasoned decisions. On the supply side, high transaction and delivery costs in
remote rural areas may result in high premiums, and undermine incentives for
insurance firms to operate. Also, controlling contractual conditions maybe
difficult because of the asymmetry of information: insurance firmsmay
frequently lack the information on the degree of exposure of farmers to
different sources of risks, as data are seldom available for remote communities.
Actuarial calculations thus become difficult. For this reason, indexed insurances
(seebelow) are seen as a promising alternative: they can overcome the major
constraints suchas transaction costs, the need for damage assessments, and
the associated asymmetric information and moral-hazard problems.
Tail risk. Tail risk is the market failure layer. These risks are highly infrequent
and catastrophic events, that are usually not insured by private companies
because of their covariate nature and the magnitude of the associated losses.
Lack of information reduces the willingness of farmers to insure against
unlikely catastrophic events. Hence tail risks usually call for the establishment
of publicprivate partnerships, allowing transfer of risks to a higher level,

for example through reinsurance markets. Examples of partnerships are the
Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool; the Andhra Pradesh microinsurance
programme; index-based weather derivative for farmers facing drought in
Malawi; and the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF),
co-financed by the World Bank. Farmers often develop expectations of
receiving support from governments in case of extreme events such as
droughts, floods, or earthquakes. This may dissuade farmers from learning
more formally how to manage risk, increase risks of moral hazard and
adverse selection, and depress demand for insurance, hence further reducing
the size of the insurance market layer.
In practice, intervention in insurance markets takes different forms.
Broadly speaking, there are three approaches taken in public-sector
intervention in the agricultural as well as non-agricultural insurance
markets. Firstly, there is a minimal regulatory role which is necessary for
enforcing contracts. Secondly, public resources can be deployed to ease the
functioning of private insurance markets by contributing reinsurance for
covariate risksand coverage for extreme events. Thirdly, public resources can
be employed to directly subsidize premiums, either by organizing supplies
through state enterprises, or through private insurance companies. These
three approaches are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the distinction
between them is often blurred: premium subsidization and financial
supportto private insurers is often provided in relation to risks which
are assumed to be highly covariate and catastrophic, or where insurance
knowledge is very limited.
Risk management
Once the extent of risk exposure has been assessed, the next step is to consider
what actions can be taken to reduce the losses associated with risk exposure.
Discussions start with the special nature of agricultural production, with
its strong dependence on biological processes and a high vulnerability to
natural phenomena such as weather and pests, as we have noted. Thefocus
is usually on yield or production risk. This approach has several short-
comings, such as neglect of the possibility of a natural hedge or compen-
sation, such as when prices and production are negatively correlated: a low
level of agricultural production often signifies high market prices and vice
versa. Therefore, through increases in prices, producers might in part be
able to compensate for a reduction in production. In such circumstances,
producers total incomes are somewhat equilibrated and welfare losses are
limited, given that what ultimately matters is incomes, not simply the level
of production.
Coping strategies
If the physical characteristics of production and the institutional context
allow farmers to access storage and hedging, even unexpected price

variability can be dealt with by farmers directly and effectively, compared
with public attempts to stabilize prices and incomes. The availability of
updated and location-specific technical information is another element that
helps farmers reduce their risk exposure. For instance, the applicationof
agronomic techniques can reduce the impact of pest attacks, drought,
orother sources of yield variability. Therefore, the extent to which agricul-
tural service markets from credit to transport, storage to extension
services work effectively and meet farmers demands determines the size
of the retention layer. Where service markets are incomplete, or of limited
accessibility, farmers are forced to rely on coping strategies and informal
methods to smooth their consumption levels.
Examples are crop and income diversification, or informal networks of
relatives and friends, or social safety nets, as well as contracts, such as share
tenancy or credit contracts, or business contracts along a value chain in the
more favourable cases. While some of these strategies are common in all
agricultural environments for instance crop and income diversification
there are risk-avoidance contexts in which they result in the perpetuation
of subsistence conditions. Farmers may easily reject specialization and
productivity improvements by investment in improved technology such
as new varieties of seeds or improved cultivation techniques. Instead they
may diversify, or reduce the exposure generated by costly direct or comple-
mentary inputs. Hence risk may prevent increases in agricultural productivity,
leaving potentially usable resources idle. Such risk can be the origin of poverty
traps, and constitute a key constraint to agricultural development and the
improvement of living standards of poor households. Essentially the risk is
not avoided but becomes another type of risk, but maybe one which the
farmer can more easily recognize, if not actually manage.
In principle, three strategies allow management of price risk. These are:
(a)directly affecting the distribution of prices, so as to make negative price
swings less likely; (b) hedging against predicted negative price fluctuations;
and (c) coping with the consequences of bad or low prices. And these actions
can be taken either directly by the chain participants, or form part of a
government programme intended to provide income protection.
The ability to assess the potential effectiveness of each risk management
strategy depends on the causes of price variability in the first place, and
the mechanisms through which these variations are transmitted. From the
perspective of producers within complex value chains, one crucial element
that needs to be considered is the actions that other participants in the chain
might engage in. These actions will eventually condition the variability of
prices faced by the producer and the producers ability to mitigate negative
fluctuations.
Effects of production, storage, and marketing decisions

The sources of variation that are relevant for agricultural producers depend
on whether they make their impact within the farm gate or beyond it.
Thiscorresponds to the traditional distinction made between production
(oryield) risk and market (or price) risk. Through decisions on the amount
being sold or on the timing of sales, the producer can directly affect the price
(s)he receives, and therefore production and marketing decisions themselves
can be considered mechanisms for risk management.
The timing of marketing decisions is constrained by the need for income
for household costs and for working finance. Farmers require credit or
savings even to bridge the time between sowing and harvests; hence
purchasing inputs, even in the absence of unexpected market or environ-
mental swings, requires finance. Crop and plot diversification, savings,
storage, and purchase of financial assets, where they are accessible, are
common practices that serve the purpose of managing the expected price
variability. In the absence of any other source of credit, produce must
besold so-called distress sales to meet immediate financial needs.
Andsuch sales often occur at a time when market prices are low, because the
timing coincides with harvest, and/or because other people are in the same
situation, needing to make sales at the same time.
The extent to which the level of production and the price received by
the producer are negatively correlated depends on the relative scale of the
producer and the size of the market. Usually, for small producers, changes
in individual output and product sales are not capable of affecting prices,
and in such cases it makes sense to analyse and manage yield risk indepen-
dently of the price received. The smaller and more local the market, the
higher the possibility that the natural hedge can be effective, as quantities
and prices arelikely to experience greater fluctuations. But even if individual
producers have little scope for affecting the price level through management
of the quantity marketed, such that production shocks are correlated across
producers, individual production and total production will be correlated,
andtherefore some scope for a natural hedge may exist.
However, local markets may be integrated with larger markets, even
international markets, and therefore prices may fluctuate with supply and
demandacross a wider economic region. In this case, local supply and demand
conditions will not change prices in what is, in effect, a much larger market.
Inshort, selling prices will be independent of local supplies, the natural link
between low production and high prices is lost, and there will be no natural
hedge: farmers may have to sell their limited supplies at prices kept low by
the supply and demand conditions in the wider market. Under such circum-
stances, the production and market risks can both be severe.
Furthermore, in some circumstances, producers as a group might exploit the
ability to increase the price they receive by reducing the quantity theymarket.
This is the rationale for the practice of product withdrawal. When demand
isinelastic, even a slight decrease in the quantity sold can raise the price and
increase overall revenue. For such a strategy to be effective, however, coordi-
nation among all producers that supply their product to a given market is
crucial. In small markets, again, coordinated market action can be achieved by

collective decisions through, for example, cooperatives.
For cartel-like coordinated marketing agreements to be effective at raising
prices, there needs to be disciplined producer organization, and for cheating
to be detectable and punishable (Figure 4.2 and Box 4.1). Cheating happens
because there is a strong incentive for any single producer to sell all of his or
her production at higher prices when all others withdraw theirs, stimulating
those very same high prices, leading to side-selling. And for a cartel to be
able to coordinate producers and marketing behaviour, information about
each partners sales arrangements needs to be available. Often such market
discipline is lacking. The international commodity agreements for coffee and
cocoa tended to be ineffective for just these reasons.
The type of product has some bearing on the feasibility of coordinating
market action. Withdrawal (and destruction) of excess production is an
option for perishable products. Easily storable products, such as grains,
present another opportunity for producers to alter the distribution of prices
through the management of stocks. When technically feasible, the possibility
of private storage management is a very powerful means of price-risk
management for producers. Thus, unless there are technical conditions that
hinder the possibility of storage, the exposure to price risk for producers
should always be assessed by taking into account the opportunities for inter-
temporal arbitrage that can be exploited through storage management.
Theconsequence of this is that, for storable products, pure price risk is rarely
The industry A representative firm

Price Price
MC
AC
p
MR
D
q q Quantity q q q Quantity
Figure 4.2 The cartel
Source: author
Box 4.1 Side-selling: Cheating is the cost of coordinating high prices

Economic analysis of the cartel problem is a relatively simple way to represent the problem
of cheating: sellers try to coordinate output to raise prices, but find that some members of
the group choose to increase sales to take advantage of the high prices.
In the left-hand diagram in Figure 4.2 the whole-industry demand curve and
marginal revenue curve are D and MR, respectively. The initial market equilibrium occurs
at output and price pq. For the representative firm or farmer in the right hand
diagramoutput is set at q, receiving price p, just covering average costs. Nowsuppose:
farmers in a cooperative implement quotas which reduce overall industry output to q

the price rises to p, maximizing joint profits
for the typical farm, output quota q gives rise to individual profits the pale shaded
rectangle in the right-hand diagram at the new price p
but at the new price p the individual farms profit maximizing output is greater, at the
level q where the marginal cost MC = new price p and including the larger diagonally
shaded area
at this level of output higher than the quota, the farms profits rise
but if all firms increase output, industry output increases beyond q and prices fall
to the original market equilibrium level
the profitability of cheating means that it is difficult to sustain high prices unless
other members of the cooperative can detect the source of the increased output and
punish the cheat!
Source: author
an issue for producers, and any activity directed towards reducing the cost of
storage (which comprises both physical and financial components) will always
have very strong implications for producers ability to cope with price risk.
One other aspect that complicates the analysis of price in the presence
of storage is active government intervention. Usually, public programmes
intended to achieve price stabilization in developing countries are justified
as a means to protect consumers. Consumers are numerous and often more
politically active, able to bring pressure on governments, in urban areas. Thus,
mechanisms such as buffer stocks and export restrictions are put in place for
domestically produced foodstuffs with the aim of preventing food prices from
rising above a ceiling level. From the producers perspective, unpredictable
changes in policies that directly and indirectly affect commodity markets are
perhaps the most relevant source of price risk independent of producers own
market behaviour. In this respect, government lobbying by producer interest
groups can be seen as a mechanism for price-risk management. Such advocacy
is another potential focus of collective action by producers, and is a form of
long-term risk management.
Hedging price variation

When individual producers are confronted with a large market, so that there
are no direct ways for them to modify the actual level and distribution of
prices, the possibility of hedging against the residual price-risk exposure
remains. Hedging is the activity whereby producers enter in a contractual

agreement with the objective of countering possible negative variations of
the price. To be sure, the most effective way of hedging the price exposure
would be that of entering into a contractual agreement directly with the final
consumers, who will have the exact opposite stand in terms of price, and
therefore would provide the most effective price-risk sharing opportunity.
Inmost cases this is impractical, given the physical and economic separation
that exists between producers and consumers. Nevertheless, there are other
hedging mechanisms that could be exploited by agricultural producers, which
include forward-sale contracts to be stipulated with an intermediary buyer
of the product, and price-contingent contracts to be traded on organized
exchanges. The possibility of effectively exploiting the hedging potential of
formal contracts traded on local or international exchanges depends largely
on the institutional settings that allow for their enforcement, and these are
limited for developing country producers.
Two aspects of forward contracting deserve to be highlighted. First, in
agricultural produce markets, it tends to be that many small producers deal
with few economically larger traders, who may exploit local buying power
in formulating the terms of the contract: on quantities, quality, delivery and
timeliness, and, above all, the price. Second, when a share of local production
is sold through forward contracts, the concept of a spot market price loses
some of its significance as the link between the wholesale price that forms
at the level of final consumption and the farm-gate price is broken. While
this might protect producers from the consequences of market events that
may occur beyond the farm gate after the contract has been signed, it usually
comes at the price of forgoing the benefits of any rises in price.
One other aspect to be considered is that the signing of a forward contract
introduces a new type of risk for the producers, namely the possibility that
thebuyer or client will default on the terms of the contract and fail totake
delivery of the product at the specified conditions. It is precisely this risk
that increases as smallholder producers enter into new types of contractual
arrangement through more sophisticated mechanisms of market coordi-
nation. The extent of this client risk depends strongly on the institutions
thatsupport exchange, including the prevailing legal system and the
abilitythat producers have to call upon impartial courts to enforce contracts.
Inshort, the levelofinstitutional development influences the transaction
costs and the level of risk, as discussed in Chapter 3 and as clearly explained
by North, among others (North, 1987, 1990, 1994).
For export commodities, traders of exports originating in developing
countries might find opportunities to hedge their selling-price risk exposure
through contracts traded on international exchanges. The possibilities for
local producers in developing economies depend, once again, on the existence
of either formal or informal contractual agreements between producers and
traders, on their relative market power, and the complexity of institutional
development.
Coping with price variation

The last element of a producers price-risk management strategy is the
possibility of using other mechanisms to cope with the variation of prices,

revenues, or returns. Focusing on income risk, the ability to cope depends
essentially on the level of reserve assets such as livestock and machinery, or
remittances and other forms of reciprocal exchange, or the ability to draw on
personal savings. Inother words, the cost of any activity intended to cope
with monetary income shocks is given by the opportunity cost of personal
savings and/or by the effective interest rate for credit.
Problems arise when access to credit is limited or absent. A full understanding
of the role of coping strategies in such conditions requires analysis from the
overall household perspective. It has long been established that lack of access
to credit makes consumption and production decisions interdependent (Singh
et al., 1986). Such a relationship may show up in the most pernicious way
following income shocks, and the consequences can be dramatic, jeopardizing
the future ability of the household to escape poverty, as when coping strategies
involve the mobilization of the productive assets mentioned above, or reducing
household expenses and investments in human capital (Dercon, 2005).
In this context, the numerous and growing positive experiences of the
microfinance initiatives, and the development of analogous microinsurance
programmes, are significant developments in financial markets. Such initiatives
lessen the link between income shocks and the long-run asset status of a rural
household. In other words, even though it might be described as a means to
promote investments in productive activities, the value of microcredit is that
it allows smallholder farmers to buffer consumption shocks (Johnston and
Morduch, 2008).
Risk management and the role of contracts

The emergence of institutionally complex value chains in the markets for
agricultural and food products poses a big challenge to defenders of free
markets. These arrangements demonstrate the coordination and information
problems that prevent the trade of agricultural products from being efficiently
regulated by free market forces alone. With reference to the risk implications,
unfettered markets become a means through which those who can enjoy
greater bargaining power can transfer the majority of unacceptable risk onto
others, rather than a mechanism through which the socially optimal distri-
bution of risk is achieved. It turns out that, in business, it is not just prices that
matter. Rules and regulations, both formal and informal matter, and inter-
personal relationships are included: as Fafchamps and Minten (1999) found
in Madagascar, relationships are important because they provide safeguards
where business practices are unsophisticated. However, without supporting
institutions in the business environment, the free market remains nothing
but a flea market (Fafchamps and Minten, 1999: 31).
Quotes like the one reported at the beginning of this chapter might
convey the impression that the ability to extract rents associated with market
power can also be exploited to transfer more than the fair share of risk.
Nevertheless, in discussing risk management from a value chain perspective,

itis imperative to analyse the competitive structure at each and every link of
the chain and understand how the real conditions of the transaction allow
one of the two parties to transfer risk to the other. About 250 years ago, the
Scottish economist Adam Smith observed the problem of market power very
clearly, and he could equally have been describing farmer cooperatives or
traders. Like Fafchamps and Minten, he saw that those without market power
were frequently disadvantaged but, unlike them, he envisaged no role for
direct government intervention:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public,
or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent
such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be
consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder
people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought
to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them
necessary (Smith, 1776: 232).
Market power usually plays a role in the contract-bargaining process that

leads to the definition of the contractual terms. Usually the smaller, weaker
party to a contract is forced to accept less advantageous conditions. Yetthere
may be cases in which the presence of risk offsets the effects of market
power, such that it works to the benefit of the competitively weaker party.
For example, procurement contracts by the vegetable processing industry,
or by the organized retail sector for fresh fruits and vegetables, lead to a
sharing of responsibility for some of the production risks in order to avoid
disruptions in the continuity of processing and sales.
This rebalancing of power can be seen in the forward sales that are common
in the fresh-fruit sector of Mediterranean countries and elsewhere: the buyer
(usually a wholesale trader) pre-purchases a crop often a tree crop such as
citrus before harvest, thereby absorbing part of the yield risk, in order to
ensure the procurement of the product (Box 4.2). Commonly, such contracts
stipulate the lump sum to be paid to the producer for the entire production of
a given field, usually at the end of the winter and right after the pruning of the
trees, when only a rough estimate of total production can be made, based on
the appearance of the flower buds. In this way, producers transfer the residual
yield risk to the traders.
These cases demonstrate that, in specific cases, risk along the value chain is
better handled through complex contractual agreements than simply through
sales. However, just as smallholder farmers are unlikely to choose contractual
arrangements to minimize transaction costs alone, so also to base their
contract choice exclusively on risk reduction is probably an unwise strategy.
Box 4.2 Formal contracts: Risk sharing between farmers and traders in Spain and Ghana
Can the introduction of standard sellerbuyer contracts facilitate producers marketing
decisions and reduce uncertainty, thereby lowering transaction costs for Spanish mandarin
and orange producers? Research showed how producer behaviour was found to vary and how
producers could be grouped according to their different production and marketing orienta-
tions. Regarding sales decisions, marketing factors in addition to the negotiated price were
found to be important determinants of the terms of the transaction. Most of all, uncertainty
about payment was a major preoccupation of small-scale producers, more so than prices,
and contracts were considered to be one way to mitigate this form of market risk.
Marketing institutions are less developed in sub-Saharan Africa: producers often
experience weak bargaining relationships with traders because they do not have access to
information on prices, demand conditions, or alternative marketing channels. Most of all,
farmers lack the ability to enforce verbally agreed terms of exchange with traders. Farmers
may also renege on agreements, to the detriment of small traders. Such contractual ineffi-
ciencies reduce the performance of the market system, with multiple consequences: there
are unexploited market opportunities, in-field and post-harvest losses, seasonal gluts of
produce, poor quality control, inequitable returns to producers, unsatisfied consumer
demand, and reduced multiplier effects in the rest of the local economy.
A study of vegetable marketing in Ghana offered ideas for how the development
of contractual institutions could enhance market coordination: closer coordination
mechanisms to mitigate uncertainty and enhance the building of a clientele, for example
through formal contracts, have potential to overcome the pervasive mistrust between
farmers and traders and reduce transaction costs.
Written agreements such as standard-form contracts offer three advantages over verbal
agreements. First, written specifications establish criteria by which performance can be
measured in terms of important variables such as product price; quantity traded; product
quality; place of delivery; ownership of packaging materials; and payment date. Changes
to these terms will be transparent, and, in the event of unavoidable conflict, resolution
mechanisms can be specified.
Second, adoption of written agreements may boost the informal rules of business
attitudes and ethics. Moral obligation rather than the force of law may, in time, come to
prevail, creating trust between buyers and sellers.
Third, the law is there to help, but expectations of formal legal remedies should not be
exaggerated. It may be preferable that unwritten norms and customary laws operate through
negotiation rather than the expensive remedial use of contract law through formal legal
procedures. Hence the importance of developing moral obligation within the trading culture.
Source: summarized from Poole et al. (1998, 2003) and Poole (2000)
Sellers usually make complex calculations which include price, relationship,

and risk factors.
The role of governments in risk management

One final issue is the role of government intervention. Of all the reasons
why a government might want to intervene in the economy, the provision of
some form of insurance is probably the least controversial one. In agriculture,
for example, many policies worldwide have been explicitly justified by the
desire to reduce risk and stabilize income. The history of stabilization policies
in agriculture is long, rich, and diverse, although there still is debate about
the overall merit of such policies. With reference to prices, and linked to our
discussion of price risk, one accepted conclusion should be that price stabili-
zation per se is not a desirable policy objective. Everything else being equal, an
attempt to stabilize prices without an understanding of the fundamental cause

for price instability may reduce the natural hedge, resulting in increased risk
and a shift of instability from one sector of the economy to another, orfrom
one social group to another, but with no clear net social benefit. Instead, the
fundamental source of instability should be addressed.
Nevertheless, direct price stabilization policies and other forms of government
intervention in agricultural and food markets are still very common, and they
happen to be periodically brought up the policy agenda, following unpredicted
swings in the levels of prices. One consideration has to do with the concept of
tail risk. Tail risk involves rare but dangerous events, such as natural disasters
or extremely adverse economic conditions. In recent years, governments
have demonstrated willingness to step in to mitigate financial crises that are
a consequence of major tail risks. However, anticipation of this form of inter-
vention will have the consequence that private actors will alter private risk
management behaviour and underinvest in private risk-prevention activities.
The second consideration relates to the role that information plays in risk
management and in the public-good nature of information. A key step in the
design of any risk management strategy is the assessment of the probability of
negative events occurring. Information on the frequency with which such events
occurred in the past, and on the impact that they had, is crucial to understand
what is at stake. Unfortunately, the information may be kept private.
National and international public services play a crucial role in the
provision of information. Production risks are increasingly dependent on the
impacts of climate change, and the significance of publicly managed early
warning systems becomes clear in this context. Projects such as the USAID
initiative Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET, undated)
provides information on forthcoming likely rainfall and temperature
patterns and indicates likely effects on agricultural production in particularly
sensitive countries and regions. FEWS NETs estimates of impacts on poor
peoples livelihoods, and supply and demand impacts on prices and markets
and implications for regional and international trade, are the sort of public
information that can inform risk management. To collect, validate, certify,
and disseminate information that helps in assessing the probability distri-
bution of bad events is perhaps the most important role for public policies in
risk management.
With reference to price risk, commodity exchanges typically serve as
information brokers for prices of actively traded commodities, and their
diffusion in developing countries will certainly help improve the overall
market-risk management ability of producers.
In general, the willingness to buy and supply agricultural insurance
depends upon farmers different risk profiles and on the costs at the margin
for insurance companies. Insurance is a private service, and excludable: those
who pay receive cover; those who dont pay are excluded. Asinsurance cover
is not a public good, the role of the government in theinsurance market
should be limited to regulation: that is, providing the legal framework for
enforcing contracts and ensuring competition. One additional important role

for governments, however, is the collection and disclosure of information
which can be asymmetric and costly, and is often considered to be a public
good. Data on risk exposure and on expected damages are needed on the
supply side, in order to perform actuarial calculations about risk, premiums,
and likely payouts; and on the demand side, to reduce the lack of specialist
knowledge on insurance in general and risk management in particular, and
the tendency to underestimate the probability of unlikely events.
Agricultural insurance for agricultural development

Based on a review of experiences with agricultural insurance, this section
discusses the extent to which insurance can be employed in developing
countries as a market-risk management tool to promote investment and
improvements in agricultural productivity. The focus is on the role of public
support to small-scale enterprises such as farmers. Successes and failures can
be found among experiences entailing different forms and degrees of public
intervention, partnership with the private sector, and, to some extent, even
within different types of insurance.
Risks generated in agriculture by the interaction with long production cycles
imposed by plants and livestock biology are among the justifications which
have been given for extensive public support to the sector, along with the
importance attached to securing food supplies and access to adequate levels
of consumption. In fact, as we have noted, government intervention through
domestic supports often has a significant impact on risk. Risk reduction is
one of the channels through which subsidies are considered to be decoupled
from farmers production decisions at the margin for instance those granted
under the European Common Agricultural Policy.
Where agriculture is less generously supported than in the OECD, as is
the case in most developing countries, farmers deal with risks by resorting
toa number of informal and formal strategies and practices allowing themto
mitigate risk and prevent excessive income and consumption fluctuations.
Despite being effective in many cases, these ex post mitigation tools tend to
force farmers to adopt a risk-averse attitude, maybe avoiding engagement with
markets, hence potentially hindering investment, innovation, and agricultural
development, or even perpetuating poverty traps (Dercon, 2005; Barrett,2008).
Enhancing the ability to manage risk can be an important element in the
promotion of investment for agricultural development.
Agricultural insurance is not uncommon in advanced economies, and has
long been suggested as a risk management and agricultural-development tool
in developing countries. Risk-sharing arrangements do not reduce total risk
but can reduce the burden on individual farmers in two ways: by transferring
the risk to other institutions or organizations who are better able to bear the
risk or who are less risk-averse; and by pooling risks across space, crop sectors,
andother economic sectors (Hazell et al., 1986: 2). Idiosyncratic and individual
risks can be insured against relatively easily. Large-scale phenomena such as

drought or floods the catastrophic tail risks mentioned above are more
difficult to insure because of their covariate nature.
Types of insurance
Hopes some years ago that the smallholder insurance industry might take off
have been disappointed (Hazell, 1992). However, efforts to develop appropriate
insurance products for the covariate risks of developing country agriculture
have continued such as risk securitization in Nicaragua (Miranda and
Vedenov, 2001). Over the last few years, there has been an increasing interest
in hedging against weather-related events, following the increasing likelihood
of extreme phenomena related to global environmental issues such as climate
change. Public intervention in this area is now growing, with governments
looking with interest towards market-based tools to hedge financial positions
in case of adverse events. Newer and promising products, at both micro and
macro levels, are indexed insurances. These are based on indemnities tied
to predetermined indicators for a common geographical area, unlike the
assessment of losses sustained by individual enterprises which are examined
in the field. Indirect-index insurance, also called weather derivatives, falls in
this category (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2010: 234). Mahul and Stutley (2010) cite
China, India, and Mexico as countries where provision of weather insurance
has expanded. Differences between indemnity and index-based agricultural
insurance products are summarized in Table 4.1.
At the micro level also, insurance is considered to be a promising area for
promoting agriculture in poor developing countries, as well as for managing
safetynets and disaster management, as shown by the increasing number
ofprojects, pilots, experiments, and even policy schemes which are being
undertaken that entail some sort of agricultural insurance (Mahul and
Table 4.1Differences between indemnity and index-based agricultural insurance

Indemnity-based insurance products Index-based insurance products
Losses assessed at individual level Losses assessed using an index
Crop Damage-based products frost, hail, Area yield-based index insurance
insurance fire, floods, storms, pests, diseases Weather index-based insurance
products Theft-based products Normalized difference vegetation
Yield-based products index insurance
Shortfall and crop revenue insurance
Livestock Accident and mortality insurance Mortality risk insurance
insurance Herd insurance
products Epidemic disease insurance
Source: adapted from: Mahul and Stutley (2010)
Stutley,2010). Thismarket potential is increasingly recognized by insurance

providers in advanced economies:
The success of microcredit worldwide has shown that people with low
incomes are a proven market for financial services and are effective
consumers if given appropriate products, processes, and knowledge.
Inthe insurance field, microinsurance can provide the specialised
insurance products demanded by under-served low income markets
(Lloyds Micro Insurance Centre, undated: 3).
Nevertheless, there are complex problems concerning agricultural insurance

in developing countries:
Small producers in developing countries want it mainly to cover loss
of crops, livestock, plantations and farm equipment. Challenges for
insurers include the high cost of distribution, the high costs of loss
assessment and claims handling, and difficulty in controlling fraud
and moral hazard. Local schemes struggle with correlated risks, such as
droughts, that affect whole regions and therefore most clients (Lloyds
Micro Insurance Centre, undated: 26).
While market demand opportunities are becoming clearer, the specialist

nature of provision is also evident, as shown in Table 4.2.
Resuming investment to enhance productivity and production in poor
countries requires a number of combined actions, and the reduction of exposure
to risks can play an important role. Financial schemes involving insurance
are considered to be one way of supporting agriculture. Insurance does not
destroy market incentives as some emergency or humanitarian financial or
physical product interventions do, but rather builds on the potential for
private suppliers to be involved in financial markets.
Government support can take various forms. In the first instance,
insurancelegislation is needed to create an enabling environment through
insurance legislation. Secondly, direct interventions can include premium
subsidies and reinsurance. Nevertheless, experiences of subsidies to private
public partnerships tend to be mixed in terms of financial sustainability and
market development. Many schemes have been abandoned, and many markets
have failed to develop due to lack of interest from farmers, who simply did
not purchase the policies. Finally, training and information provision about
risk management, monitoring, and early warning systems are simple and
necessary forms of intervention that directly increase peoples individual and
organizational capacity to manage risks and livelihood strategies.
The Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF) of the International Finance
Corporation, working with private financial services providers such as Swiss
Re and rural sector firms such as the Syngenta Foundation, is one such
publicly sponsored scheme intended to provide insurance cover in developing
countries. Cover is provided particularly to smallholder farmers who, on the
one hand, experience problems of lack of information and expert financial and
Table 4.2Differences between traditional insurance and microinsurance

Traditional insurance Microinsurance
Clients Low risk environment Higher risk exposure/high

Established insurance culture vulnerability
Weak insurance culture
Distribution Sold by licensed intermediaries or Sold by non-traditional
models by insurance companies to wealthy intermediaries to clients with little
clients or companies that understand experience of insurance
insurance
Policies Complex policy documents with Simple language
many exclusions Few exclusions
Group policies
Premium Monthly to yearly payments, often Frequent and irregular payments
calculation paid by mail based on an invoice, or adapted to volatile cash flows of
by debit orders clients
Linked with other transactions
(e.g.loan repayment)
Control of Limited eligibility Broad eligibility
insurance Significant documentation required Limited but effective controls
risk (adverse Screenings, such as medical tests, (reduce costs)
selection, may be required Insurance risk included in
moral hazard, premiums rather than controlled by
fraud) exclusions
Link with other services (credit)
Claims Complicated processes Simple and fast procedures for small
handling Extensive verification sums
documentation Efficient fraud control
Source: adapted from: Lloyds Micro Insurance Centre (undated: 78)
risk management knowledge, and on the other are subject to systemic hazards
for which there is under-provision by the private sector. Using predefined
statistical indices of events, such as the natural disasters to which agriculture
is prone, to trigger payouts speeds response to disaster and reduces the costs of
administration and individual loss adjustment (Box 4.3).
The role of governments in insurance provision

Very few experiences of agricultural insurance work on a purely market basis,
and even several of the more innovative indexed policies require support
from the public sector or foreign donors. This is the case in countries where
agriculture enjoys extensive support, such as the US and the EU: such public
supports tend to crowd out private insurance provision, so that subsidies
are required to stimulate demand. Equally, where agricultural insurance
appears in developing countries, public support is not uncommon. Especially
where local resources are more constrained, foreign and/or donor resources
are employed to finance agricultural insurance schemes, at least for facili-
tating reinsurance. For poor farmers in developing countries, motivations for
Box 4.3 Index-based insurance for rural communities

The Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF) is a multi-donor trust fund that supports the
development and growth of local markets for indexed/catastrophic insurance in developing

countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and AsiaPacific.
GIIFs objectives are to provide access to finance to vulnerable populations and to expand the
use of index insurance as a risk management tool in agriculture, food security, and disaster
risk reduction. GIIFs implementing partners covered more than 1.3million farmers, pasto-
ralists, and microentrepreneurs as of July 2016, with $148million in sums insured.
Providing access to finance for the vulnerable, insurance is an important element of
poverty alleviation. Unfortunately, agricultural insurance and disaster insurance are either
unavailable or prohibitively expensive in many developing countries. Index insurance is an
innovative approach to insurance provision that pays out benefits on the basis of a prede-
termined index or loss of assets and investments resulting from weather and catastrophic
events, without requiring the traditional services of insurance claims assessors. It also
allows for the claims settlement process to be quicker and more objective.
Source: International Finance Corporation (2016)
public intervention in agricultural insurance range from the need to reinsure

systemic risks, to the need to overcome start-up information and transaction
costs, and because premiums may beunaffordable for poor households.
In general, governments seem to intervene well beyond what they would
be expected to do: subsidization of premiums and financial support to private
insurance companies or parastatals is widespread and goes beyond the
correction of market failures generated by catastrophic risks and regulation
and the provision of information. While this can benefit insurance companies,
theeffect on agriculture is not always clear. In fact, premium subsidization is
often associated with reports of inefficiency and fraud. Targeting insurance
towards poorer farmers is difficult and many schemes fail to address the needs
of the poorest.
Because insurance is one element contributing to the removal of obstacles
to agricultural investment and the development of smallholder farming,
policies should be consistent with the broader objective of promoting a
complete and functioning market for all agricultural financial services. In fact,
insurance has frequently developed in connection with the market for other
services, particularly credit: in summary, access to credit and insurance are
mutually reinforcing.
Economic risk and types of value chains

Having surveyed the issues concerning producers price-risk management, we
turn to value chains in developing country contexts. Factors affecting risk
management in different value chains will be driven essentially by product
characteristics such as:
the degree of product perishability, which dictates the feasibility of

storage and long-distance transportation;
the degree of product quality standardization or differentiation, which

may either be determined by the products nature and geographic
origin, or by marketing promotion policies of supply-chain managers,
and which greatly determine the degree of market power that producers
may achieve;
the degree of processing, or the extent to which the bulk product is used
also as an input for other industries, which may condition the charac-
teristics above.
For example, using the agricultural product as an input in a processing activity

may increase the storability of the products and drive a price and processing
wedge between consumers and producers of the bulk commodity. We have
noted that the consumer markets for beverages products such as coffeeor
chocolate are distinct and remote from the producer markets for rawcoffee
orcocoa in which smallholders are massively involved. Ifthe bulk agricul-
tural product is used as an input in other industries, the price variation for the
agricultural product is only indirectly linked to the evolution of final demand.
Risks can be seen to be a property of business throughout the value chain.
Figure 4.3 summarizes the types of risks that are common to agri-food
chains, occurring at different stages: risks external to the chain but which
affect farm and firm performance are policy, supply, and distributional issues;
risks internal to the chain include technology, production, information,
and organizational risks.
International fresh produce-chains

The capacity to supply international markets with fresh, perishable, unprocessed,
speciality food products offers greater value-adding opportunities to chain
participants, including those farmers who can overcome entry barriers of scale,
management, and specification. However, this poses questions in terms of the
kind of risks to which the chain is exposed and of the risk management options
available for producers. These are related to the perennial nature of some crops
such as tree crops and therefore the inelastic supply response which can
create price instability when demand fluctuates. For perennial and othercrops
there are also questions about quantities, delivery, and quality assurance. And
of major importance in international markets are trade risks due to political
instability and price risks due to fluctuations in exchange rates.
Depending on product characteristics, the chain organization will differ along
the following dimensions, which are relevant for the objective of exploring the
impact on producers of the basic agricultural product, especially small farmers:
level of complexity/integration;
extent of control operated by the various agents;
locus of price formation;
major production risks, other than price variation, to which the producer
is exposed.
External
Policy risk Supply risk Distribution risk
Exchange Importexport Transport Timeliness

Supplier
rates controls knowledge infrastructure
Supplier Storage
Price Environmental default Transport
controls standards Logistics availability Processing
Product Regulatory Public Industry Quality and

standards standards utilities organization quantity losses
Value
Risks
chain
Production Market Customer
Quality prices default Management Relationship
Finance costs
Management failure skills dissolution
skills Yields Market Customer
Input Pest demand knowledge
Drought, Labour quality Finance
Labour quality supplies attacks flood, hail Market and quantity
and quantity Market
Household supply preferences Governance
shocks Diseases
Technological risk Production risk Information risk Organizational risk

Internal
Figure 4.3 Value chain risk management
Risk management for agricultural smallholders
Source: adapted from Lin and Zhou (2011)

103
These, in turn, will determine:
likelihood that small farmers will participate in the value chain;

share of value added that can be appropriated by small farmers;

potential for income-risk reduction for farmers by participating in the
value chain;
role for effective public action.
Staple foods for domestic consumption

The production of staple foods is still the most important sector in many
agriculture-based and emerging economy countries (World Bank, 2007: 118).
There are two major destinations for staple foods: domestic consumption
and export. The share of total production that is destined for domestic
consumption still forms a large share of agricultural production, especially
the output of small farmers.
Value chain organization in these cases can vary in complexity. Theleast
complex are short chains from producers, through one or two or no
intermediaries, to local consumers in the village. Increasingly complex
chains involve multiple traders who concentrate supply in the producing
areas, serve wholesale markets, include sophisticated market functions of
storage,transport, and processing, and distribute to urban retailers and
export markets.
Often there is some involvement of government in procurement, storage, and
distribution activities, particularly of staple crops: examples can be found in the
Public Food Distribution System (PDS) in India (Pritchard et al., 2014), or the Food
Reserve Agency (FRA) (Poole, 2010) in Zambia. The level of formal or informal
contractual agreements of farmers in these cases is limited. Governments have
often tried to facilitate more complex and risk-limiting contractual arrangements
in developing countries through the development of commodity exchanges,
with mixed success (Jayne et al., 2014; Meijerink et al.,2014). For example,
in Zambia, Sitko and Jayne (2012) point to a series of factors that restrict the
development of the market: an unwillingness of financial institutions to engage,
asymmetric information among traders leading to opportunistic behaviour and
therefore lack of trust, conflicts of interest, market manipulation, and high costs
of trading. Finally, unpredictable interventions of government in the cereals
market impede development (Sitkoand Jayne, 2012).
The spread of warehouse receipt systems, usually for staple foods, is another
example of market procurement facilitated by government support that
addresses the private objectives of individual farmers and the public objective
of national food security (Box 4.4).
Where the major market is domestic consumption, the price formation
locus is the retail market, where the final purchase occurs. It is determined
partly by the local supply and demand conditions, and sometimes by
government intervention, usually for consumer protection. This may involve
Box 4.4 Risk management through aligning private and public objectives
Warehouse receipt systems allow agricultural producers to access credit by borrowing
against receipts issued for goods stored in independently controlled warehouses. These
systems enable producers to delay the sale of their products until after harvest, to a
moment when prices are generally more favourable. Warehouse receipt systems can
therefore mobilize credit for the agricultural sector and improve agricultural trade.
Warehouse receipt systems bring other benefits to the agricultural sector. For example,
the provision of good handling and storage by warehouses licensed and controlled according
to mandatory standards can help reduce post-harvest losses and improve product quality.
The increased storage of agricultural commodities after the harvest season may in turn
contribute to stabilizing commodity price volatility. With respect to the management of
national food security and strategic reserves, an effective warehouse system provides
government authorities with timely and accurate information about the aggregate stock of
stored agricultural commodities in the country
In recent years, many countries around the world have begun to introduce or reform
legislation of their warehouse receipt system. Various objectives motivated the reforms,
from mobilizing credit for the agricultural sector after market liberalization to adapting an
existing system to the requirements of electronic commerce, or enhancing the income of
smallholder producers.
Source: Wehling and Garthwaite (2015: vi)
various forms of price control and stabilization initiatives considered to be

easily implementable, which often involve public storage.
Although price risk should not be of great concern to producers who
enter into contracts with the traders or the government establishments,
there is arguably scope for improvement of the market-information systems
that link producers to the final market. This can be of great benefit to
producers in remote areas, who might be excluded from the expanding
consumer markets by post-harvest losses due to poor storage infrastructure,
wide marketing margins that reduce returns, poor market integration,
limited access to finance, and weak regulatory institutions. Under such
conditions, improvements in the marketing infrastructure and in the
market-information system can enable farmers to enhance the contractual
terms obtained from traders.
Apart from price risk, yield risks and personal accidents are likely to be
the most relevant risks which reduce the income derived from staple foods
farming, and compromise the ability of farmers to repay debts.
Fresh fruits and vegetables for domestic consumption

In more developed fresh fruits and vegetables chains, the commercial fruit
andvegetable producers are usually not among the asset-poorest farmers:
they will have irrigation, make intensive use of labour, and have alreadybeen
able to step up from subsistence and staple food production (Dorward, 2009).
Onthe other hand, for fresh fruits and vegetables, the possibility of arbitraging
through storage is precluded because of the perishability of theproducts.
Asreported above, traders may have to procure and pay for the product
through advance contracts, thus bearing most of the risk associated with
product deterioration and other risks, which may be particularly high in many
developing countries owing to poor infrastructure.

Here too, the supply chain risk is particularly vulnerable to natural shocks.
Weather effects are less likely to impact more sophisticated production systems
that are often physically protected from environmental impacts, and irrigated.
Environmental shocks are more likely to affect post-harvest bulking and distri-
bution activities; for example, through weather-related damage to roads and
bridges. Investment in public infrastructure and the provision of medium-term
loans to private traders are likely to be very effective means to reduce the overall
risk exposure in the chain and to thus benefit the farmer suppliers.
Although open-air markets and roadside kiosks are still the dominant forms
of retail for fresh fruits and vegetables, rapid change in retail organization
is progressing in almost all developing regions. Supermarkets are slower to
gain market dominance in the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables in developing
countries, but the modernization of other parts of the chain will likely affect
the organization of the supply chains for fresh produce (Cadilhon et al.,
2006; Reardon et al., 2009; Minten et al., 2010). If nothing else, there will be
a segmentation of the market through sizeable differences in prices among
vegetables and fruits sold in the supermarkets and those sold in traditional
open-air markets and roadside kiosks. A growing share of the production will
be procured by large retailers and better-organized traders, through production
contracts rather than through open market transactions, when timing and
quality of production becomes crucial.
Internationally traded commodities

For commodities such as coffee, cocoa, tea, and cotton for which there is
an active international trade, the central locus where the price is formed
isusually abroad, and the scope for influencing the process of formation of
such prices by producers, consumers, or governments in developing countries
is very limited (Borzoni and Poole, 2011).
If the market were free from distortions, producers would be exposed to
the price risk associated with the variability of international markets. Inmost
commodity markets, however, governments can, and do, influence the
effective price that producers receive for their product by various forms of
trade policies, thus breaking the link between internationally quoted prices
and effective farm-gate prices. The issue of price risk for producers becomes
one of institutional risk; that is, the risk that the government might change
policy in unexpected and adverse ways.
Although producers themselves might not be able to use futures and
options to hedge price risk, the international dimension of the market andthe
presence of international commodity exchanges for these products never-
theless provide important scope for intermediaries to hedge against negative
price variations, and they may then transfer part of the benefits to farmers in
terms of more stable prices.
One other change that is occurring in the supply chains of traditional
bulk commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and tea, is the attempt to colonize
new market niches, resulting in a wave of diversification into speciality
commodities, up to the point of causing the switch to a distinctly different
commodity chain organization.
Speciality commodities for international markets

One significant evolution in the markets for traditional food products such as
coffee, chocolate, and tea has been the creation of segmented niches based on
fair trade or environmental sustainability characteristics to try to attract rich
consumers. This has been done by attaching to the product some quality
dimension in an attempt to diversify buyers away from the mature, traditional,
bulky markets. Brands, denominations of origin, organic certified, fair trade,
bird-friendly, socially responsible, etc. are very common labels attached to the
more-less traditional products to extract a greater value-added premium from
the consumers (Donovan and Poole, 2014a, b).
The fundamental reasons for the development of this type of institution
and/or participation by large private companies involved in the trade,
processing, and retail of agricultural commodities can be questioned: is it really
a genuine interest in the conditions of the poor, a superficial acknowledgement
ofcorporate social responsibility, or is it just seen as an opportunity to colonize
and revitalize old markets through smart and innovative product differen
tiation? Ensuring stable access to remunerative export markets is a major
benefit to producers (Donovan and Poole, 2014b). Nevertheless, research in
Ethiopia and Uganda found that fair-trade certified coffee and tea arguably do
not improve lives of the very poorest (Cramer et al., 2016).
Switching away from a traditional, undifferentiated product towards an
added-value product has implications for the characteristics of the demand
faced by retailers. On one hand, the price elasticity of demand is dramatically
reduced, which allows sellers to differentiate their product from the competing
ones and to sustain price mark-ups over marginal costs; on the other hand, the
demand for these products tends to be more volatile and extremely sensitive
to perceived drops in the reliability of the quality information and to changing
economic conditions (Garca Martnez and Poole, 2008).
Product differentiation is a fundamental strategy for marketers of food
products. However, most of the attributes that are more relevant are of
a credence type: the truthfulness and the actual content of labels such as
GMOfree, organic, pesticide free, fair trade, socially responsible, and denomi
nation of origin cannot be objectively assessed by the consumers, who
must thus rely on some form of information which can be either privately
or publicly provided. When the certification is reliable and where strong
institutional settings exist to enforce the truthfulness of labelling, retailers
have to coordinate and control product management across the entire

supplychain.This will imply a stronger integration with producers, which
could be obtained through complete vertical integration. Forms of contractual
relationship between producers and other agents can definitely allow

producers, even in developing countries, to participate in the distribution of
the added value generated by product diversification. They will usually require
investment by the producers to comply with special production and a trace-
ability system which allows for producer identification.
Associated with these requirements, new types of risk for producers arise.
First, after investments are realized, the other participants in the chain may
fail to accept delivery of the product if a cheaper source of production becomes
available, or if demand conditions change. Thus, agreements may not be
binding and buyers can default on purchase commitments. Second, sunk or
irrecoverable investments in specific assets may weaken producers position
and induce them to accept a lower share of the value added. Third, there is risk
of some type of failure in the value chain that compromises product quality,
with producers held liable.
These risk considerations may condition the participation of developing
country producers in highly coordinated value chains. For producers to
profitably participate in these chain opportunities depends in part on an
effective institutional and legal system for contract design and enforcement.
Fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers for international markets

Another rapidly growing sector in the global agricultural trade from the South
to the North is the one that involves highly perishable products such as fish,
meat, fresh fruits and vegetables, and cut flowers. Such products account
for about 50 per cent of the value of agricultural exports from developing
countries. The production, marketing, and trade of fresh and processed fruits
and vegetables has been described as one of the most dynamic segments of
developing country participation in world markets (Minten et al., 2009: 1),
making global chains both accessible and lucrative for poor farmers.
The problems and pressures on supply chain integration posed by these
products are similar to those analysed for speciality foods. The value added
is linked to the ability of sellers to diversify products by associating with the
product some quality characteristics for which rich consumers are willing to
pay. However, in these cases the quality attributes are of a search type, more
easily assessed by consumers before purchase, and therefore their supply
is mostly affected by timing of the delivery, compliance with detectable
sanitary and phytosanitary standards, variety of choice, and freshness, all
things which producers, above anyone else, control (Poole et al., 2007).
Fair-trade chains are found in such markets, and the research in Uganda and
Ethiopia referred to earlier (Cramer etal., 2016) found against fair trade in the
cut-flower market also.
For some standard fruits, such as bananas and pineapples, the dominant
configuration in global trade in the past has been vertical integration, with
trading companies taking direct control of production through ownership
oflocal plantations. In that context, risk is (almost) fullyinternalized,

and the role of small farmers is non-existent, other than as wage workers in
the plantations, often in very weak bargaining positions.
Nevertheless, the spread of information on the conditions of workers
in the plantations and corporate social responsibility has impelled change
evenin the chains of these standardized tropical fruits, with more attention
given to socially responsible practices and certification. At the same time,
for other fresh products which need faster and more careful handling, the
prevailing model is contractual agreements between independent producers
and traders or retailers. This offers producers a stronger contractual position
within the value chain, although high asset thresholds for individual
smallholder participation remain a barrier. Collective organization tends
to be a prerequisite for participation, improved risk management, and
investment in transport, handling, and packaging infrastructure. Box4.5
gives a brief account of a case which illustrates issues of contractual
arrangements and risk management between a large export firm and small
producers.
The final section of the book will explore other cases where projects have
aimed to integrate producers into commercial markets.
Box 4.5 French beans from Madagascar

French beans in Madagascar are procured and sold to supermarkets in Europe by one
Malagasy company, Lecofruit SA. The results of a survey of 200 representative farmers
producing vegetables under contracts in the Highlands of Madagascar showed that
contracting was beneficial for farmers, reducing the lean inter-seasonal period for
producers, diversifying income sources and thus providing income insurance.
The contract characteristics allowed interesting observations related to the risk
implications for the farmers and for Lecofruit SA to be made:
Farmers retained most of the production risk, with the additional dimension of quality
risk: the contract specified that the firm would only pay for product that fulfils the
quality norms set in advance.
Because it is in the interest of the firm to maintain adequate supply, Lecofruit SA
provided technical assistance and training, in addition to monitoring and supervision
of the contracted areas.
Potential alternative market outlets for producers created incentives for Lecofruit SA to
offer a price premium to attract and retain farmers and to ensure enforcement.
Contracts proved to be self-enforcing, necessarily so given the poorly developed legal
institution and the relatively high transaction costs for formal enforcement, compared
with the small amount involved in any individual contract.
Contracts appeared to be robust even under conditions of high inflation and therefore
price risk.
Source: Minten et al. (2009)

Conclusions
The fast-growing interest that has formed around the concept of value chains
in developing-country agriculture has revealed that there are important

opportunities for income growth and expanding markets that can be captured
by farmers in these countries. At the same time, engagement in such markets
increases the level of risk faced by small-scale farmers. Themajor lessons
that can be derived from the discussion of the many problems related to
increasing risk exposure and risk management in the previous pages are
outlined below.
Exposure to uninsured risk, in general, still determines welfare losses to poor
people in developing countries. Risk is still one of the major determinants of the
agricultural production and food value chains of most developing countries,
and ultimately of the real opportunities available to small-scale farmers.
Getting involved in value chains for new and evolving markets for agri-food
products does not necessarily reduce the risk exposure of those who have less
bargaining power within the chain. Product characteristics, such as storability
and quality standardization, can reduce the ability of farmers to negotiate
formal and informal contractual agreements that dominate the value chain
transactions, but can provide some safeguards in equilibrating negotiating
power. In value chains for products such as grains, or bulk commodities
suchas coffee, tea, and sugar, producers remain price takers, exposed to
priceriskbeyond their own marketing decisions. The ability to manage income
risk depends on access to credit, insurance, and contract terms. Public policy
is needed to strengthen market-supporting institutions to improve access
to financial services and mechanisms for contract enforcement. Fostering
collective action creates advantages in accessing markets and handling risk,
as well as raising important governance challenges.
For products with a low degree of storability, such as fresh fruits and
vegetables, and fish and meat products, farmers will have stronger bargaining
power, especially where product quality and timing of delivery is a crucial
element in attracting high willingness-to-pay consumers, both in domestic
urban areas and in export markets. In the value chain organization, farmers
can retain most of the risk related to variation of quality of their product,
despite technical assistance provided by traders and retailers. Also, trace-
ability and other labelling requirements impose on producers some costs and
risks that are not present in traditional marketing systems. An important risk
management option in these cases is linked to investments in education and
technical innovation. Government participation remains crucial in assisting
agricultural producers in developing countries to manage their risk, although
public interventions should be limited to investment in infrastructure and
institutions to promote three conditions:
information sharing;
competition;
contract enforcement.
Indeed, the prevailing view of the role of the state goes beyond these
potential roles to create an environment in which agribusiness can operate
fairly and efficiently, all the time balancing the need for specific interventions
with the need to create a climate that enables farmers and firms to unleash
their own business initiatives:
Governments can help by establishing appropriate regulatory systems

that ensure the safety and quality of agricultural goods and services
without being costly or burdensome overall so as to discourage firms
from entering the market. Excessive regulation makes firms move to
the informal economy and generates high unemployment. Poorly-
designed regulations impose high transaction costs on firms thus
reducing trade volumes, productivity and access to finance. Creating
an enabling environment for agriculture is a prerequisite to unleash
the sectors potential to boost growth, reduce poverty and inequality,
provide food security and deliver environmental services. Among
other factors, government policies and regulations play a key role in
shaping the business environment through their impacts on costs,
risks and barriers to competition for various players in the value
chains. Bysetting the right institutional and regulatory framework,
governments can help increase the competitiveness of farmersand
agricultural entrepreneurs, enabling them to integrate into regional
and global markets (WorldBank, 2017: x).
References
from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy 33(4): 299317 <https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.005>.
Borzoni, M. and Poole, N.D. (2011). Sourcing strategies in the Italian coffee
industry. Food Chain 1(1): 7186 <http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/2046-
1887.2011.006>.
Cadilhon, J.-J., Moustier, P., Poole, N.D., Giac Tam, P.T. and Fearne, A. (2006).
Traditional vs. modern food systems? Insights from vegetable supply chains
to Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam). Development Policy Review 24(1): 3149
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2006.00312.x>.
Cafiero, C. (2008). Agricultural Producer Risk Management in a Value Chain
Context: Implications for Developing Countries Agriculture. EU-AAACP Paper
Series. No. 4. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
templates/est/AAACP/inter-regional/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_
No_4_1_.pdf.
Conforti, P. (2009). Agricultural Insurances as Market Based Tools for Risk
Management and Agricultural Development. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 5.
Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved
28 March 2017, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/
inter-regional/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_No_5_1_.pdf
Cramer, C., Johnston, D., Mueller, B., Oya, C. and Sender, J. (2016). Fairtrade
and labour markets in Ethiopia and Uganda. Journal of Development Studies:
116 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1208175>.
Dercon, S., ed. (2005). Insurance Against Poverty. Oxford, Oxford Scholarship
Online.
Donovan, J. and Poole, N.D. (2014a). Partnerships in fairtrade coffee: aclose-up
look at how buyers and NGOs build supply capacity in Nicaragua. Food
Chain 4(1): 3448 <http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/2046-1887.2014.004>.
Donovan, J. and Poole, N.D. (2014b). Changing asset endowments and
10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.010>.
Dorward, A. (2009). Integrating contested aspirations, processes and
policy: development as hanging in, stepping up and stepping out.
Development Policy Review 27(2): 131146 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-7679.2009.00439.x>.
Fafchamps, M. and Minten, B. (1999). Relationships and traders in
Madagascar. Journal of Development Studies 35(6): 135 <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00220389908422600>.
FEWS NET (undated). Home page. Retrieved 9 May 2017, from http://www.
fews.net/
Garca Martnez, M. and Poole, N.D. (2008). The development of private fresh
produce safety standards: Implications for developing Mediterranean exporting
countries. Fresh Perspectives 26. agrifoodstandards.net. Retrieved 28 March
2017, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08b96e5274
a31e0000c4a/60506-fp26.pdf.
Hazell, P.B.R. (1992). The appropriate role of agricultural insurance in
developing countries. Journal of International Development 4(6): 567581
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380040602>.
Hazell, P., Pomareda, C. and Valds, A., eds (1986). Crop Insurance for
Agricultural Development: Issues and experience. Baltimore, MD, Johns
Hopkins University Press.
International Finance Corporation (2016). Global Index Insurance Facility.
Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/
industry_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/financial+institutions/
priorities/access_essential+financial+services/global+index+insurance+
facility.
Jaffee, S., Siegel, P. and Andrews, C. (2008). Rapid Agricultural Supply Chain
Risk Assessment: Conceptual framework and guidelines for application.
Commodity Risk Management Group, Agricultural and Rural Development
Department. Washington, DC, World Bank. Retrieved 28 March 2017,
from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMRISMAN/Resources/
RapidAgriculturalSupplyChainRiskAssessmentConceptualFramework.pdf.
Jayne, T.S., Sturgess, C., Kopicki, R. and Sitko, N. (2014). Agricultural
Commodity Exchanges and the Development of Grain Markets and Trade in
Africa: A review of recent experience. Working Paper 88. Lusaka, Zambia,
Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI). Retrieved 28March
2017, from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/188568/2/wp88.
pdf.
Johnston, D. and Morduch, J. (2008). The unbanked: evidence from Indonesia.

World Bank Research Observer 22(3): 517537 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
wber/lhn016>.
Lin, Y. and Zhou, L. (2011). The impacts of product design changes

on supply chain risk: a case study. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 41(2): 162186 <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/09600031111118549>.
Lloyds Micro Insurance Centre (undated). Insurance in Developing Countries:
Exploring Opportunities in Microinsurance. Lloyds 360 Risk Insight. Retrieved
28 March 2017, from https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/
library/society-and-security/insurance-in-developing-countries.
Mahul, O. and Stutley, C.J. (2010). Government Support to Agricultural Insurance:
Challenges and options for developing countries. Washington, DC, World
Bank. Retrieved 9 May 2017, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/2432.
Meijerink, G., Bulte, E. and Alemu, D. (2014). Formal institutions and social
capital in value chains: the case of the Ethiopian Commodity Exchange.
Food Policy 49(1): 112 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.015>.
Minten, B., Randrianarison, L. and Swinnen, J.F.M. (2009). Global retail chains
and poor farmers: evidence from Madagascar. World Development 37(11):
17281741 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08.024>.
Minten, B., Reardon, T. and Sutradhar, R. (2010). Food prices and modern
retail: the case of Delhi. World Development 38(12): 17751787 <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.04.002>.
Miranda, M. and Vedenov, D.V. (2001). Innovations in agricultural and
natural disaster insurance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(3):
650655 <https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00185>.
North, D.C. (1987). Institutions, transaction costs and economic growth.
Economic Enquiry 25(3): 419428 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.
1987.tb00750.x>.
North, D.C. (1994). Economic performance through time. American Economic
Review 84(3): 359368.
Poole, N.D. (2000). Production and marketing strategies of Spanish citrus
farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51(2): 210223 <https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01224.x>.
Poole, N.D. (2010). Zambia Cassava Sector Policy: Recommendations in support
of strategy implementation. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 16. Rome, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017,
Poole, N.D., Del Campo Gomis, F.J., Juli Igual, J.F. and Vidal Gimnez, F.
(1998). Formal contracts in fresh produce markets. Food Policy 23(2):
131142 <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(98)00024-4>.
Poole, N.D., Seini, A.W. and Heh, V. (2003). Improving agrifood marketing
in developing economies: contracts in Ghanaian vegetable markets.
Development in Practice 13(5): 551557 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096145
2032000166483>.
Poole, N.D., Martnez-Carrasco Martnez, L. and Vidal Gimnez, F. (2007).

Quality perceptions under evolving information conditions: implications
for diet, health and consumer satisfaction. Food Policy 32(2): 175188
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.05.004>.
Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., Sekher, M., Parasuraman, S. and Choitani, C.
(2014). Feeding India: Livelihoods, entitlement and capabilities. Abingdon, UK,
Routledge.
Reardon, T., Barrett, C.B., Berdegu, J.A. and Swinnen, J.F.M. (2009).
Agrifood industry transformation and small farmers in developing
countries. World Development 37(11): 17171727 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2008.08.023>.
Schaffnit-Chatterjee, C. (2010). Risk Management in Agriculture: Towards
Market Solutions in the EU. Frankfurt am Main, Deutsche Bank Research.
Retrieved 11 November 2016, from http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/
DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000262553.PDF.
Singh, I., Squire, L. and Strauss, J., eds (1986). Agricultural Household Models:
Extensions, applications, and policy. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Sitko, N.J. and Jayne, T.S. (2012). Why are African commodity exchanges
languishing? A case study of the Zambian Agricultural Commodity
Exchange. Food Policy 37(3): 275282 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodpol.2012.02.015>.
Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations (Penguin Classics edition 1970).
Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin.
Swenson, L. (2000). Income risk management: the perspective of United States
farmers, in Income Risk Management in Agriculture, pp. 657. Paris, OECD.
Retrieved 11 November 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/
agricultural-policies/42750750.pdf.
Wehling, P. and Garthwaite, B. (2015). Designing Warehouse Receipt Legislation:
Regulatory options and recent trends. Rome, UN Food and Agriculture
Organization. Retrieved 10 November 2016, from http://www.fao.org/3/
a-i4318e.pdf.
World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development.
Washington, DC, World Bank. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf.
World Bank (2017). Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017. Washington,
DC, World Bank. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://eba.worldbank.
org/~/media/WBG/AgriBusiness/Documents/Reports/2017/EBA2017-
Report17.pdf.
PART II
Case studies of smallholder agriculture
CHAPTER 5
Introduction to Part II: Assessing

the impact of commodity development
projects on smallholder participation in
agricultural markets: Case studies from
Ethiopia, Peru, Tanzania, and Zambia
In this short chapter we prepare the way for the analyses that follow in Chapters 69 of
market development projects in four developing countries, and the comparative analysis
and synthesis in Chapter 10. The framework and methodology for the qualitative
study are explained and limitations acknowledged. Conclusions are presented for
readers who want to only skim Chapters 610.
Keywords: framework, assets, indicators, interventions, theory of change
Introduction
The principal theme of this book is to understand the constraints affecting
smallholder farmer participation in agri-food markets and point to ways to
help farmers take better advantage of market opportunities. In the earlier
chapters we considered some of the constraints in theory and in practice.
Inthe last chapter we considered risk and how to manage it. InPart 2
we report on four interventions, in different contexts, which aimed to
increase farmers commercial opportunities, and present simple analyses of
the impacts of the projects. Risk is one of the factors that is highlighted.
Chapters 610 draw substantially on papers by Amrouk et al. (2013) and
Mudungwe et al. (2012).
Market-participation projects can be considered from two angles: first,
and commonly, projects are designed by third-party organizations such as
government bodies, international organizations, and non-governmental
organizations. Whether or not these projects are designed and implemented
in a participative manner, they can be considered as interventions by organi-
zations that are inherently outside the agri-food value chain, as defined at the
end of Chapter 1:
Intervention: a project, action, or activity of an agency (public, private,

third sector) external to the targeted beneficiaries as part of a policy
formulated to achieve an objective.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.005
Second, access to markets can come about through strategies and activities
among participants within the value chain, and can be described better as
initiatives, independent of outside interventions:
Initiative: a project, action, or activity which arises from within or among

beneficiary organizations and individuals.
Harper et al. (2015) argue that most business happens within commercial
value chains that are not the object of project interventions. Their volume of
case studies illustrates how farming smallholders and other poor people can
profitably integrate their livelihood activities with modern value chains. And,
they argue, projects are not needed because there are benefits for all value
chain partners and it simply makes good business sense.
Nevertheless, we have seen that there are many reasons why smallholder
farmers cannot easily access markets. The four interventions introduced
here and reported in Chapters 69 were designed to overcome these diffi-
culties. Four projects on vegetables, milk, sisal, and henequen were
selected for analysis, and lessons about how these projects have succeeded
inenabling better market participation by the smallholder farmers were
drawn. Ultimately, the objective was to develop guidelines for best practices
to be pursued in designing and implementing future commodity projects:
to draw lessons on the determinants of successes and failures of projects
assisting smallholder farmers to enhance their participation in agricultural
value chains (Amrouk et al., 2013).
Cases
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the
Common Fund for Commodities (CFC) have been implementing commodity-
specific development projects for over 20 years in the context of the development
plans agreed by the FAO Intergovernmental Groups (IGGs). Nearly 70 per cent of
the projects have been located in least-developed countries. These projects mostly
aimed to provide smallholder farmers with knowledge, skills, and servicesto
increase agricultural productivity and household incomes. Project inputs
tofarming systems included dissemination of improved varieties, provision of
fertilizers and pesticides, training on effective crop-management systems, and
transmission of information on market trends and prices. In some instances,
support to build market infrastructure, such as pack-houses for processing fruits
and vegetables, greenhouses, and funding for the establishment of institutions
such as farmers cooperatives and associations, was also provided.
Since the scope to increase income through area expansion remains limited
in many contexts, productivity growth through the adoption of new technol-
ogies and practices is required to enable smallholders to achieve higher
returns. Higher productivity can therefore generate surpluses of marketable
crops and livestock products, enabling better access to market opportu-
nities for more consistent supplies of higher-quality and -quantity products.
IMPACT OF COMMODITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 119
However,theadoption of new technology for productivity gains is not straight-

forward. As we have noted in earlier chapters, in general, smallholders often
cite lack of information about improved technologies, lack of access to credit,
high risks associated with investments in agricultural technologies, or simply

that the technology is not available, as the main constraints for commercial-
izing agriculture. The success of any commodity-development project depends
not only on a careful identification of the constraints, but also on the effec-
tiveness of the proposed measures to overcome these constraints.
Four CFC/FAO-project case studies were selected for the analysis. These
were identified following discussions with the secretaries of the FAO IGGs
andofficials at the CFC. These projects were chosen as they provided a good
representative sample for the purpose of this study. In addition, other aspects
were taken into account, including the availability of relevant documentation
and national contacts, diversity in terms of commodity and geographical
coverage, and logistical arrangements to minimize travel requirements for
completion of the case studies.
The projects had different specific objectives. However, the overall goal of
all the projects was to enhance the market-participation capacity of small-
holders. Indicators based on livelihoods concepts were formulated to measure
smallholders market participation before and after the implementation of
the project.
Most readers will want to move on to the following short chapters to gain an
understanding of each intervention and read, mainly qualitative, summaries
of the findings of and conclusions about the individual projects. For others
who want a quick insight, we here give an overview of the four studies and
make some overall comments on smallholder market participation.
A fuller account of each of the four cases is presented in Chapters69.
Aquantitative summary and overview of lessons learned follows in
Chapter10.
Establishment of diversification programme for vegetable export development

in Ethiopia and Sudan (CFC/FISGTF/17)
The purpose of the project was to strengthen the export capacity of
smallholdervegetable farmers in Ethiopia and Sudan through the removal
of critical supply-side constraints in relation to technical, infrastructural,
business, and market factors. The project was implemented over a three-year
period at an estimated cost of US$2 million. It had three focus areas:
enhance the productive capacity of smallholders to export vegetable

products, namely beans and okra;
improve post-harvest handling skills and infrastructure;
develop marketing and trading systems.
The immediate beneficiaries were farmers and out-growers. Institutions

and organizations supporting farmers also benefited from training that was
designed to enhance skills. The report which follows in Chapter 6 concerns

only Ethiopia.
Production of oleaginous plants and commercialization of natural vegetable

oils as substitutes for diesel fuel for public transportation in Peru
and Honduras (CFC/FIGOOF/26)
The objective of this project was to promote the cultivation of rape and
Jatrophacurcas by smallholder farmers. The crops were to be processed and
subsequently used as a substitute fuel by private and public commuter
transport in cities in Peru and Honduras. The project commenced in April
2007 and was scheduled to be completed in March 2013. The estimated
cost of the project was US$5.6 million. The direct project beneficiaries were
smallholder farmers and small public transportation companies. The project
consisted of the following five main components:
development of production activities/techniques for rape and jatropha;

production of vegetable oil by oil-extraction plants;
substitution of diesel fuel by the extracted vegetable oil by private and
public transportation companies;
training activities delivered to various stakeholders (farmers, oil-
production enterprises, and transport companies);
dissemination of project results to different stakeholders.
The report which follows (Chapter 7) concerns only Peru.
Product and market development of Sisal and Henequen (CFC/FIGHF/07)

The objective of the project was to develop products and markets for sisal
and henequen in Tanzania and Kenya. The project was implemented between
January 1997 and December 2005. It had the following four components:
development of new sisal varieties and improvement of cultivation

practices;
utilization of fibre-extraction waste for animal-feed production and for
biogas and electricity generation;
market studies and trials to establish the demand for sisal pulp and to
identify potential buyers of the products;
dissemination of project results.
The report in Chapter 8 concerns only Tanzania.
Strengthening the productivity and competitiveness of the smallholder dairy

sector in Lesotho and Zambia (CFC/FIGMDP/14)
The project was implemented in Lesotho and Zambia over a four-year
period at an estimated cost of US$3.3 million. It was aimed at improving
the productivity and marketing position of smallholder dairy cooperatives.
The direct beneficiaries of the project were the smallholder dairy farmers,
butalso milk processors and consumers who benefited from increased local
milk supplies and better-quality milk. Specifically, the project set out to
achieve the following:
promote better and more innovative livestock feeding technologies for

local production and conservation of protein-rich feed stock;
enhance milk quality and hygiene to reduce wastage and increase shelf
life and safety of milk;
pilot basic processing technologies to increase shelf life of milk targeted
at different consumer groups and large-scale processors.
The report which follows in Chapter 9 concerns Zambia only.
Research approach and framework

Qualitative impact evaluation
Impact assessment is intended to determine whether a project had the desired
effects on project beneficiaries, for example, farmers, households, and market
institutions. Impact assessments can also explore unintended consequences,
whether positive or negative, for beneficiaries. Some of the key questions
are: How did the project affect the beneficiaries? Could programme design
be modified to improve impact? Were the costs justified? In the cases which
follow, the problem is enhancing market participation and the assessments
were undertaken to answer some of these key questions.
Whereas a quantitative approach using randomization techniques is mainly
suited for an ex-ante analysis, this was not appropriate for this ex-post analysis.
Limited resources and time indicated the use of a non-experimental or quasi-
experimental design to be appropriate. Qualitative impact evaluation was
the principal approach used, and inferences were drawn from methods such
as reviewing project implementation processes, interviewing project benefi-
ciaries and other market participants, conducting focus-group discussions,
and analysing supportive secondary data.
The CFC/FAO projects considered here faced many challenges due to the
complex nature of the services delivered, the diversity of project activities,
the different contextual environments, and the broad range of outcomes
that such projects were designed to effect. Two evaluation approaches were
used: theory-based evaluation, which is based on careful articulation of
the programme model and use of the model as a guiding framework for
evaluation; and participatory evaluation, which involved close collabo-
ration between the evaluation team and project funders, supervisory
bodies, executing agencies, and a sample of project beneficiaries. These two
methods, used in combination, represent a powerful tool for meeting the
ultimate objective of this task.
Theory-based evaluation involves identifying the key inputs and expected
project outcomes, and analysing the underlying assumptions about how
these inputs would lead to the desired outcomes. It implies the examining
ofthe assumptions underlying the causal chain from inputs to outcomes

andimpact.The various links in the chain are analysed using a variety of
methods, building up an argument as to whether the theory has been realized
in practice. It traces how the (short-term) project activities and outputs will
cause (short- to mid-term) outcomes and how these will lead in turn to
(longer-term) social and economic impacts. This approach, as used here, is
shown in Figure 5.1, which illustrates the pathway from the inputs made, in
these cases, by external interventions which are expected to overcome market-
entry barriers, not least by enriching the asset status of the beneficiaries.
Leveraging these livelihood assets leads to a series of positive economic and
other outcomes. Sustainability is achieved through the impact of immediate
outcomes on the long-term enhancement of livelihood assets.
The development of quantitative indicators was guided by the causal
linkages identified in Figure 5.1. Broadly, there were two groups of indicators:
livelihood indicators of the participating farmers, and market indicators.
Thefour case studies concerned commodities from four different groups, namely
export vegetables, milk, sisal, and oleaginous plants. A set of specific indicators
was adapted and analysed for each project.
Livelihood asset indicators

The first set of indicators related to the capacity or assets of smallholder
farmers. A livelihood approach was used to assess change or how the
projects have benefited the capacities of smallholder farmers. Livelihood
Inputs Outcomes
Interventions by the Incomes:
state, external
donors, and NGOs growth, stability, and
distribution among
beneficiaries
Sales:
Assets quantities and quality of
Finance Human products marketed
Training Social through new value chains
Technology Physical compared with alternative
Institutions Financial markets
Natural Prices:
returns for products
marketed through new
chains compared with
alternative markets
Initiatives by
commercial value Changes in assets
chain partners
human, social, physical,
Inputs financial, natural
Figure 5.1 Theory of change approach: intervention inputs, assets, and outcomes
Source:author
change results in an increase of livelihood assets (natural, human,

social, physical, and financial), and asset changes have been found to be
usefulelsewhere as indicators of livelihood change (Donovan and Poole,
2013, 2014).
The following key asset indicators were analysed for the four projects:
Human assets:
improved technical skills for production and managerial skills;

improved quality-control protocols;
development of skills in new product development and exploitation of
new markets;
number of new product lines.
Social assets:
access to markets and information;

participation in collective activities product sales through interme-
diary organizations;
participation in collective activities organizational and membership
and governance activities;
formalization of contractual linkages with value chain intermediaries.
Physical assets:
technology, buildings, equipment, machinery, and housing improvements;

investments in processing and marketing infrastructure individual
and/or collective.
Financial assets:
access to credit;
income benefit from product sales.
Natural assets:
scale of production, increases in livestock numbers, or new land brought

into production;
uptake of new production technologies such as new varieties;
investments in resource conservation and management.
Market-related indicators
The second set of indicators relate to market participation by the
smallholderfarmers:
Incomes:
changes in producer/beneficiary incomes;

changes in the distribution of income between men and women (likely
to be derived from qualitative data).
Sales:
changes in total product sales (quantity);

proportion of product sales through new market outlets, compared with

traditional or alternative (status quo ante) outlets.
Prices:
product prices received through new market outlets compared with

traditional outlets;
prices and income stability.
Innovation:
proportion of income from new economic activities, compared with

traditional activities;
new income-earning opportunities e.g. labour markets, associated
services.
Methodology
Data requirements
The assessment entailed the following key steps:
review of documents and literature;

development of an analytical framework that included the design of
instruments for the different categories of interviewees/respondents,
namely project beneficiaries and stakeholders;
development of a work plan for country field visits in Peru, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, and Zambia;
field visits to the four countries for data collection, with each country
allocated five days;
administration of individual questionnaires to project beneficiaries and
in-depth interviews with project stakeholders;
site visits and observation of project facilities and activities;
Triangulation was emphasized in the data-collection process. A detailed account

of the approach and methodology can be found in Mudungwe etal. (2012).
The main data-collection instruments and methods employed in data
collection comprised interviews with project beneficiaries based on structured
questionnaires and in-depth interviews with project stakeholders.
The assessment questions were designed to capture both quantitative
andqualitative data. The instruments captured respondents personal
data(age, sex, education, household status) and changes in livelihood assets
(household assets, agricultural assets, social assets, financial assets access
to credit and income gains). The instruments also captured the extent to
which specific constraints to market participation by smallholder farmers
were addressed by project interventions.
Table 5.1 Respondent categories and numbers

Country Project beneficiaries Stakeholders Total
Ethiopia 23 8 31
Peru 29 10 39
Tanzania 40 14 54
Zambia 40 16 56
Total 132 48 180
Convenience sampling and purposive sampling were employed for the

assessment in selecting individuals in the target groups. A major determining
factor was accessibility of the target groups within the time frame of the
visits. Table 5.1 shows the number and categories of respondents in the four
countries.
Field methods
Field visits were made to each project site during 2012. The participatory
techniques involved qualitative data collection through close collabo-
ration between the evaluation team and project funders, supervisory bodies,
executing agencies, and a sample of project beneficiaries. Discussions were
held with market-chain actors such as private-enterprise executives from
trading and processing firms, cooperative leaders and members, individual
farmers and project participants; and with key informants such as project
managers, andpublic-sector stakeholders.
Data analysis
There was both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected for
theassessment.
Content analysis was used in analysing qualitative data from interviews and
focus groups, and consisted of identifying themes, issues, trends, and thematic
interrelationships. The technique involves looking at documents, text, or
speech to see what themes emerge, or what people talk about the most.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe relationships between variables
and to suggest any causal relationships between variables being analysed.
Frequency tables, where statistics such as simple percentages are used to
compare before and after situations, were used.
Summary quantitative analysis using regression techniques was also
undertaken. Findings have been incorporated into the conclusions below.
Limitations of the studies

The four studies presented in Chapters 69 are not necessarily representative
of all the projects supported by the programme, and summarize onlythe
issuesand factors that are relevant to the theme of market participation.
Nevertheless, the research approach, concepts, methods, and the theory of

change are amenable to further development and will have more widespread
application.
A number of challenges and constraints were encountered in conducting

the assessments. These included:
insufficient time (days) to enable a wider and more comprehensive

coverage;
unavailability of some key documents for review (for example a project-
appraisal report for Tanzania) before conducting the field research;
difficulty in accessing some of the key stakeholders and beneficiaries;
choice of respondents was restricted to those within a reasonable
distance in view of the time allotted those in distant places, especially
remote beneficiaries, could not be accessed;
language difficulties and difficulties some beneficiaries had in under-
standing concepts made it difficult to collect complete data on yield,
quality, and income changes;
rescheduling of appointments (for example the Zambia field visit)
resulted in delays in completion of the data-collection component.
Summary of lessons learned

For those who want an overview, this synthesis of lessons contributes to
advancing the design of project interventions, and guiding investment by
commercial agribusiness firms that source supplies from smallholders, so that
they more effectively target different categories ofsmallholders:
The commodity projects analysed mostly targeted better-off small-

holders, those with relatively better access to productive assets, and
those farming under more suitable agroecological conditions. This bias
towards the better-endowed smallholders almost certainly generated the
best economic returns to the intervention, but it implies that the more
marginal people in less-favoured contexts were likely to be excluded as
beneficiaries.
Targeting matters. Resolving the contextual ethical issues requires
consideration of equity among different potential participants, and
the ability of potential beneficiaries to engage in higher-risk activities.
Istargeting the better-off a deliberate policy to get the best returns, or an
easier way to achieve outcomes?
Improvements in smallholder market participation were associated with
project activities that focused on extension, training and demonstra-
tions, and support for building up private agricultural assets. Market
participation was also correlated with initial conditions related to
household and farm characteristics such as wealth, land size, asset
ownership, and prevailing agroecological environment.
Access to credit was found to significantly influence farmers access to

market, highlighting the positive role of credit-support activities which
constituted, in several instances, a core component of the projects.
Given the existing bias in the selection of participating smallholders,

project activities and interventions need to be specific to the targeted
group. For the better-off smallholders, priority should be given to
activities addressing standards, quality, and export markets which, from
the field surveys, appear to be one of the main barriers to expanding
market access. For poorer smallholders, priority should be given to
activities that build up private productive assets and access to financial
services, minimize risk, and preserve natural capital.
This suggests that project design should consider realistically that
desirable outcomes for different types of smallholder farmers better-off
versus worse-off may not be the same; participants aspirations may
differ, with risk aversion being one significant variable affecting farmers
responses (Poole et al., 2013).
Results also suggest that projects that specifically address aspects related
to the natural, human, social, physical, and financial capitals that
determine the livelihood opportunities of smallholders are likely to
contribute significantly to strengthening market linkages.
Projects that included on-farm risk management strategies were more
successful because they took into account the wider agroecological,
social, and economic environment.
Similarly, interventions including elements that provided for fair, clear,
and balanced counterpart-contribution arrangements among project
stakeholders, and a deliberate investment in value chain linkages
withinthe context of a deep understanding of the wider market
environment, stood the greatest chance of seeing gains in market access
sustained beyond the lifetime of the project.
References
Amrouk, El. M., Poole, N.D., Mudungwe, N. and Muzvondiwa, E. (2013).
in Developing Countries: Case studies of FAO/CFC projects. Rome, United
Donovan, J. and Poole, N.D. (2013). Asset building in response to value chain
development: lessons from taro producers in Nicaragua. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11(1): 2337 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14735903.2012.673076>.
10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.010>.
Harper, M., Belt, J. and Roy, R., eds (2015). Commercial and Inclusive Value
Chains. Rugby, UK, Practical Action Publishing.
Mudungwe, N., Muzvondiwa, E., Musarurwa, G. and Solange Sevilla, S.
(2012). Assessment of the Impact of Selected Commodity Development Projects

on Smallholder Participation in Agricultural Markets/Value Chains: Case studies
from Ethiopia, Peru, Tanzania & Zambia. Rome, Practical Action Consulting
for Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Poole, N.D., Chitundu, M. and Msoni, R. (2013). Commercialisation: ameta-
approach for agricultural development among smallholder farmers
j.foodpol.2013.05.010>.
CHAPTER 6
A diversification programme for vegetable

exports in Ethiopia
This study examines a project designed to boost smallholder productive capacity
and participation in the export chain for green beans from Ethiopia to Europe.
Some impacts were positive. Overall, the project was unsustainable for reasons of
poor project design and implementation, specifically the failure to create a viable
value chain.
Keywords: export orientation, asset building, marketing, value chain,

project design and implementation, Ethiopia
Project context
Programme design and implementation
Europe has long been seen as a potential market for exports of fresh produce
from sub-Saharan Africa, although the challenges facing suppliers, particu-
larly in terms of value chain organization and quality control, have long been
evident (Jaffee, 2003). Evidence from a range of regions and countries shows
the potential and constraints of smallholder participation (Blandon et al.,
2009; Barrett et al., 2012). In Ethiopia, the participation of smallholder farmers
in marketing cooperatives has been found to be likely to reduce rural poverty
and increase agricultural commercialization (Francesconi and Heerink, 2011),
although welfare impacts on the poorest of agricultural exports are not always
as expected (Cramer et al., 2016).
The programme analysed here was designed to strengthen the export
capacity of vegetable farmers in Ethiopia and Sudan through the removal
of critical supply-side constraints and weaknesses in relation to technical,
infrastructural, and market factors. The project was implemented over three
years from May 2007 to April 2010. There was a further no-cost extension
phase from May 2010 to July 2011.
Here, only project implementation in Ethiopia is considered, and we
focus on four main components. The major outputs/activities of the project
intervention were:
Component 1: Development of an integrated export programme for green beans
identification of production area and producer profiles;

market-oriented production-planning meetings with stakeholders along
the value chain;
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.006
facilitation of a three-year marketing agreement for export production

between farmers union and exporter.
Component 2: Development of export-oriented green-beans production system
training of farmers and extension workers on land management, crop

production, harvesting, and post-harvest handling technologies;
production of manuals and posters for farmers and extension workers;
creation of a credit-revolving fund with farmers unions to assist in the
purchase of seeds;
establishment of a safe and prescription-based plant protection system;
establishment of a traceability system from pack-house to the exporter
system, employing records plot, farmer, picker, water-user group, grader
at pack-house, dispatch date;
training and creating awareness on Global Gap, an international quality
assurance system.
Component 3: Post-harvest handling and quality assurance from farm gate

to export point
training on HACCP and on quality-control systems for pack-houses;

two pack-houses constructed and operated by the project for two
seasons.
Component 4: Development of marketing and trade-facilitation services
study of the existing market-information systems and options for

development undertaken in collaboration with Wageningen University;
establishment of chain linkages between producers and the exporter.
Questionnaire sample
A total of 23 farmers were interviewed. All were male, and all were
heads offamily with the exception of one who was the son of the head
of family. All households considered themselves to be middle-income.
Relevant personal and project participation data are presented in Table 6.1.
More than half of the farmers included in the sample were over the age
of30, and four over 50 years. Almost half had high-school or diploma-level
education. Halfof the sample had been with the project for three years, and
half for only oneyear.
Table 6.1 Personal data and project participation

Age (years) Level of education Date of organization Years of participation
membership inproject
2530 10 Primary 12 Pre-2000 7 1 10
3050 9 High school 8 200007 10 2 0
>50 4 Diploma 2 Post-2008 3 3 10
VEGETABLE EXPORT PROGRAMME IN ETHIOPIA 131
Findings
Household asset building
Respondents were asked to indicate what significant household assets they

had before and after the project. New or increased income was likely to have
been spent on recurrent expenditures such as food and clothing. Responses
were classified as a minor upgrade if the item was a consumption good or
household item (radio, bicycle, TV, household furniture). Each item was
probably worth less than 1,000 birr (US$43; see note at end of chapter).
A total of five households were identified as having made no minor
investments or asset upgrades during the life of the project. A total of
18households, or 78 per cent of the sample, acknowledged increases in
minor household assets.
A response was classified as a major investment if the item was a productive
asset (motorbike, at least one ox or cow, a cart, or investment in improve-
ments to housing), the cash value of which was likely to exceed 1,000 birr
for each major investment. Six households reported no major investments in
household assets, 13 reported one major investment, and four reported two or
more major investments.
Access to land
Land tenure was a complicated issue, involving own land, rented land, and
share-cropping arrangements. These details were not investigated. The mean
land area devoted to agricultural production initially was 3.3 hectares, rising to
4.1 hectares at the end of the project. There was considerable variation in scale
of agricultural production, but many households were able to increase the
scale of production during the course of the project. None of the respondents
had grown green beans before the project, and the area under green beans was
a small proportion of the total under agricultural production.
Changes in agricultural assets

Respondents were asked to indicate what significant agricultural assets they
had before and after the project. Responses were classed as minor, moderate,
or major upgrades (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Agricultural asset changes

Changes in assets Number of households
Negative 2
None 7
Minor: up to 5 sheep/goats 2
Moderate: up to 10 sheep/goats/1 bovid (cow/ox) 4
Major: 2 or more bovids (cattle/oxen) 8
It is notable that two households suffered decreases in agricultural assets.

It should not be a surprise that some households report negative asset
flows. This was in part due to substitution of asset classes, but also due to
losses incurred by engaging in what is essentially a risky economic venture.

Twohouseholds balanced a reduction in livestock with an increase in major
and minor household assets, or an increase in household assets and green-bean
production. In both cases, this involved a shift from livestock into horticul-
tural production, demonstrating considerable entrepreneurial capacity to
manage a wider portfolio of activities. The labour requirement for horticul-
tural production is a plausible reason why smallholders need to rebalance
their asset portfolio. The asset reduction therefore was only nominal until,
probably, the loss of the export market rendered the investments in green-bean
production void (see below).
Project services
All respondents acknowledged receiving services of agricultural extension,
training, and access to inputs by means of the revolving loan fund. When
asked about the adequacy of these particular services, results were positive:
almost all responses were that services were either adequate or very adequate.
A paired t-test comparing the responses inadequate with adequate/very
adequate showed a difference that was very highly significant.
Responses related to the specific content of production services received were
also generally positive but there were more responses affirming inadequacy.
Nevertheless, a paired t-test comparing the responses inadequate with adequate/
very adequate showed a difference that was highly significant (p = 0.0038).
These results were supported by qualitative data from a smallholder respondent:
We got knowledge on proper use of inputs, and my income has increased.
One key informant commented: The project success was on the production
side given the right skills, small farmers can produce (Ministry of
Agriculture respondent).
The project design addressed satisfactorily the issues of productive
capacity inputs and technical issues and the productive skills of the
growers. From being non-growers to successful growers and exporters of
green beans within three years (in some cases within one year) was a consid-
erable achievement: Training received from the project helped us to use
resources wisely and in a timely fashion (smallholder farmer). The inter-
vention was appropriate it did build capacity for farmers (farm manager,
commercial producer/exporter).
In contrast, very few respondents considered any of the marketing services
to be very adequate, and a considerable number considered the services to
be inadequate, notably in respect of market information, new markets,
and market linkages (Table 6.3). A paired t-test comparing the responses
inadequate with adequate/very adequate showed a difference that was not
significant at the 90 per cent level (p = 0.1319):
Table 6.3 Adequacy of marketing

Service Inadequate Adequate Very adequate
Quality of produce 2 14 2
Market information 7 10 0
New markets 9 7 0
Linkages 8 9 0
Supply consistency 3 13 1
Transport costs 3 10 3
Contract enforcement 2 10 4
Prices 5 13 3
Storage facilities 0 0 0
Suitable transport 3 13 2
Note: * Difference of means between inadequate and adequate/very adequate not significant
at the 90 per cent level (p = 0.1319)
Financial assets
Questions about savings and actual income gains were too complex to
gain useful information because of translation and conceptual problems.
Nevertheless, the positive changes in income and assets noted were
attributed to the impact of the project. Qualitative data were more helpful
than the quantitative data. A smallholder respondent said: Theproject
linked us to market and we got higher prices and therefore increased our
incomes.
In addition, in respect of new income-earning opportunities, qualitative
responses stated that the building of the pack-houses created additional
temporary employment opportunities in construction and also seasonal
work (which proved to be temporary because of the demise of the market).
Also, there was a growth of the market for transport through use of
donkeycarts.
Downstream activities
However, there were major weaknesses in the project. Most importantly, the
export of green beans was stopped by the commercial producer/exporter after
the three-year project finished, and therefore the project failed completely
to integrate smallholders into the export market in a sustainable manner.
Farmers were left with no export market and there never had been a domestic
market for green beans.
There was evident dissatisfaction with downstream activities: The supply
chain should be addressed in an integrated manner (production, harvesting,
grading, cold chain management, packing) (key informant from project-
executing agency).
Thus, the project badly failed to address marketing issues. This dissatisfaction
was highlighted in interviews with smallholders, many of whom commented
to the effect that:
The project should have assisted us with creating a sustainable marketing

network, thereby increasing our incomes.
The project should have linked us also with local buyers.
The project should have created a sustainable market-information

system to aid farmers in production decisions.
Sustainability
As the commercial producer/exporter stopped trading green beans at the end
of the project, the sustainable integration of the smallholders was unsuc-
cessful. Asone key informant commented: Farmers in Ethiopia are no
longer producing green beans because the exporter they were linked to is
no longer commercializing green beans (project-executing agency).
The negative comments are in response to the closure of the market at
the end of the project, even if the marketing during the project had been
considered successful:
Farmers were trained in market-oriented production planning where

there was no market sustainability an area of concern is the lack of
attention given to sustaining the project initiative and the genuine
innovations (project-executing agency).
Market sustainability was not addressed by the project (key informant

Wored, Ministry of Agriculture Head, Ziway, Oromia Region).
Moreover, for some of the smallholder growers, the short-term benefits

of exporting will have been outweighed by the losses incurred through the
diversification investments in horticulture which became sunk costs. In short,
some growers will have been impoverished by participating in the project.
Costs of quality
Another issue of direct relevance that surfaced in discussions was the high-cost
and demanding quality-assurance criteria for the European market. Much is
known of the challenges this poses to exporters in developing countries. For
smallholder cooperatives to gain and maintain access to European markets
without the intermediary services of a major commercial exporter requires a
different level of investment in capacity building and financial operation. The
conclusion drawn from the focus group discussions was that: There is a need
for continuous training on production, packing and market information.
And, from a key informant: The high cost of the certification is seen as
challenge for small farmers realization of quality-assurance certification
(project-executing agency).
Targeting
Another significant issue was the targeting of smallholders. All those
interviewed claimed to be middle-income farmers. The initial level of

household assets supported this view. It is questionable whether the poorest
farmers were or indeed should have been included. This approach towards
the better-off was endorsed by one key informant: Promoting and targeting
middle-income people is a good strategy it provides a field laboratory where
others can learn also there are fast livelihoods improvements (project-
executing agency).
So the impact on wider poverty reduction and smallholder inclusion is
indeterminate. While the analysis has focused on smallholder farmers, there
was some dissatisfaction from the key informants within the cooperatives that
insufficient capacity building was directed at the primary cooperatives and
the second-tier cooperative which supplied the exporter: The project could
have built the capacity of the cooperative union by setting up market-
intelligence units (Ministry of Agriculture, Oromia Region).
Project planning and implementation

The lack of sustainability beyond the three-year horizon was a function
of poorproject design and implementation. Various issues arising from
theproject background are worth highlighting, and not all the elements of the
project were completed satisfactorily. In particular, the failure to address four
issues increased the level of risk of the project:
1. Because export-quality horticultural produce is usually a small
proportion of overall production, it was advised that importance
should be given to the promotion of regional and possibly also domestic
markets for produce which do not meet export standards (para 3).
Theregional dimension to the market possibilities in the project
documentation is evident, but in Ethiopia the focus was entirely on
the export market, because green beans were not (much) consumed
locally. As key informants commented:
Beans were a new crop to the farmers and had no local market (project
executing agency).
Regional markets could have been explored, for example, Djibouti,
Saudi Arabia (local team leader, Irrigation Agriculture Office, Oromia
Region).
There is a short export market in Europe so there is a need to diversify
to regional and local markets (farm manager, commercial producer/
exporter).
2. The project envisaged trying three crops, and possibilities need not
necessarily have been confined to these. Green beans and okra were
selected for the initial phase of the project, with possible additional crops
(e.g. capsicum peppers) to be introduced in the third year. In Ethiopia,

only green beans were grown, increasing the risks significantly.
3. The project documentation highlighted the importance of efficient
value chain linkages, making recommendations about the contractual

arrangements between producers and exporters. Three commercial
partners were initially identified. However, there was a close family
link between the project-executing agency and the only commercial
grower/exporter involved in the project. Such a single-channel market
structure was unlikely to be efficient and competitive, and, evidently,
was unsustainable. Whereas the project-executing agency was noted as
encouraging overseas investors including Dutch, German, Israeli, UK,
and US horticultural companies to consider investment in the sector, it
does not appear that foreign direct investment was considered to be a
source of capital and expansion for this project, nor, most importantly,
for creating more value chain linkages to diverse export markets.
Theweakness of the project was dependence on one market there
was a need for market diversification there was a need to link with
the private sector in market development (local team leader, Irrigation
Agriculture Office, Oromia Region).
4. Finally, it is evident that a counterpart contribution was envisaged, and
indeed was considered to be important to secure commercial partici-
pation. The counterpart contribution should have been quantified
and guaranteed. It is not clear that this was done, which is surprising
considering that the counterpart was a major export business.
It is evident that risk was increased by the exclusive focus on the export
market, on one single crop, and on one single export organization in the
value chain. Moreover, risk was magnified through an inadequate counterpart
contribution which enabled the exporter to cease trading at the end of the
project without the incurring the penalty of sunk costs, leaving producers with
no market outlet. We can speculate likewise that the lack of competitiveness
in the new value chain can be attributed to the close relationship between the
project-executing agency and the commercial producer/exporter.
Conclusions
Project beneficiaries acknowledged that there had been income and livelihood
improvements which they attributed to the project, that they were able to
increase the scale of agricultural production overall, and in most cases tobuild
assets. Capacity building among farmers was a success: significant skills in
production were gained. However, the risks of asset switching into green
beans were high, and at least some of the assets have become redundant;
smallholders who invested in assets specific to green-bean production and
exporting will have incurred significant sunk costs. Therefore, some growers
may actually have been impoverished by participating in the project.
The demand for agricultural labour increased to meet the need for careful
picking of green beans, and there was a new demand for labour in the
construction and operation of the pack-houses. The acquisition of carts by
some farmers opened up new economic opportunities as transporters.

Institution building was unsuccessful: the failure to build viable value
chain linkages was a major negative outcome of the project that imperilled
sustainability: there were no enduring chain linkages and business networks
established between producers, cooperatives, and sustainable export partners.
The loss of theexport channel meant that few of the direct benefits have
been sustained. Theunresolved question of counterpart funding may be
significant in determining how and why the business closed on completion
of the project.
Summarizing: three major strategic mistakes were the exclusive focus on the
export market, on one single crop, and on one single export organization.
Note
The 1,000 birr heuristic used to distinguish between minor and major
investments is a matter of judgement, and it is arguable that a cart and a
water pump, for example, should not be classified as minor investments but
as significant productive assets (U$1 = 23 birr on 24 May 2017).
References
Barrett, C.B., Bachke, M.E., Bellemare, M.F., Michelson, H.C., Narayanan, S.
and Walker, T.F. (2012). Smallholder participation in contract farming:
comparative evidence from five countries. World Development 40(4):
715730 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.09.006>.
Blandon, J., Henson, S. and Cranfield, J. (2009). Small-scale farmer partici-
pation in new agri-food supply chains: case of the supermarket supply chain
for fruit and vegetables in Honduras. Journal of International Development
21(7): 971984 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1490>.
Cramer, C., Johnston, D., Mueller, B., Oya, C. and Sender, J. (2016). Fairtrade
and labour markets in Ethiopia and Uganda. Journal of Development Studies
53(6): 841856 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1208175>.
Francesconi, G.N. and Heerink, N. (2011). Ethiopian agricultural cooperatives
in an era of global commodity exchange: does organisational form matter?
Journal of African Economies 20(1): 153177 <https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/
ejq036>.
Jaffee, S. (2003). From Challenge to Opportunity: Transforming Kenyas fresh
vegetable trade in the context of emerging food safety and other standards in
Europe. Washington, DC, World Bank.
CHAPTER 7
Production and commercialization

of oilseeds in Peru
This study examines a project designed to develop the oilseed sector in Peru through
encouraging smallholder production of jatropha (Jatropha curcas). Some impacts were
positive, notably human- and social-capital formation. The case provides evidence
that creating a viable value chain takes time, particularly for agricultural crops that
have a significant industrial development component, and which are intended to
address multiple objectives such as poverty reduction and enhanced environmental
management. The complexity of designing multisectoral interventions in production,
processing, and transport was not recognized. For assessing economic improvements,
a longer trial period is necessary.
Keywords: jatropha, technical services, sustainability, value chain

development, processing, research, Peru
Project context
The development of the oilseed sector in general, and of jatropha in particular,
offers opportunities for smallholder participation in the bioenergy industry
(Brittaine and Lutaladio, 2010). Nevertheless, linking smallholders into such
markets requires investment into more than production and marketing:
significant research requirements and interaction with public energy policies
presuppose coordination with the state and private enterprises, plus patient
capital investment. Mixed experiences mean that it is no longer considered to
be a miracle crop (Degail and Chantry, 2013).
The project in Peru and Honduras started in 2007 and was due to finish
in 2013. Working with small-scale agricultural cooperatives, it was designed
to reduce poverty and to improve the quality of the lives of the farmersby
improving the supply of and demand for rapeseed and Jatropha curcas.
Theprojects aim was to provide biodiesel as an alternative to conven-
tional fuels in Peru. The seeds would also be processed for the production of
vegetable oils as a substitute for diesel fuel in public transportation. Relevant
government institutions were part of several inception meetings to promote
the planting and marketing of jatropha.
The project was complex and, to some extent, experimental, with five
components and outputs. Essentially it was a privatepublic partnership between
donors, smallholder farmer groups, and small-scale companies in Peru and
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.007
Honduras to develop renewable energy alternatives, increase employment oppor-

tunities, and to contribute to poverty reduction and livelihood improvement.
Here we report only on the case in Peru.
Component 1: Agricultural development. Activities required for participating

farmers to successfully cultivate jatropha and rape for seed production.
Component 2: Production. Producing the natural vegetable oil.
Component 3: Public transportation. Uptake by private-sector commuter
bus companies of vegetable oil fuels as a substitute for diesel fuel.
Component 4: Training. Activities for the main stakeholders involved in
the project.
Component 5: Promotion and dissemination. Information on using natural
vegetable oil technology including the production of rape and jatropha,
the extraction of vegetable oil, and the conversion of diesel motors.
Demographic details
The project was implemented in four regions of Peru, and this study was
undertaken in districts of the Lambayeque region of the maritime north.
Twenty-nine (29) farmers were interviewed. The project was dominated by
men, with only three women as participants, reflecting the prevailing socio-
economic organization which has low participation of women in decision-
making positions for agricultural production and marketing.
The majority of farmers interviewed were aged 30 to 50 years and most of
them had completed secondary-school education. All but two were headsof
household. Details are shown in Table 7.1. The high level of education ofsome
of the participants (seven with tertiary education) was notable. Most farmers
were well-established in the area, with decades of residence and up to five
years of cooperative membership.
Findings
Not all quantitative data were complete, and data such as distance to market
were not informative, giving only a partial insight into the implementation

Age category Level of Years living in Relationship to Date of
(years) education the area household head cooperative
(HoH) membership
2529 7 Incomplete 1 920 2 Child 2 2007 13
3050 17 Primary 4 2130 5 HoH 27 2008 1
>50 5 Secondary 17 3140 9 2009 2
University 7 4150 8 2010 4
>50 5 2011 7
2012 2
PRODUCTION AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF OILSEEDS IN PERU 141
and impact of the project. Here we will concentrate on the qualitative

findings in particular, which give important insights into project design and
implementation.
Scale of agricultural production

Jatropha was a recent introduction to the project area. prior to the project
there was small-scale production but no farmer had yet been able to harvest
the product, so there were no productivity data available. The introduction
of the project saw farmers land under jatropha increasing from a mean of
1.8 hectares to 3 hectares, with a maximum of 18 hectares. This growth
was attributed to new, larger-scale entrants into jatropha farming as well as
increases in area by incumbent farmers.
The introduction of the project saw farmers harvesting an average of
1.9metric tonnes per hectare, with a maximum of 4tonnes per hectare. Some
of the new farmers were yet to harvest at the time the survey was undertaken.
Project services
All respondents acknowledged receiving services of training, agricultural
extension, and access to inputs. When asked about the adequacy of these
particular services, results were positive: almost all responses rated them as
either adequate or very adequate (Table 7.2).
Despite these positive responses, many farmers commented about
constraints to productive capacity and the limits to information.
Productive capacity
Farmers noted that irrigation systems were crucial for increasing productive
capacity. However, in some of the project areas they faced acute shortages of
irrigation water. There were failures in the first plantations of jatropha that
were not irrigated and were inadequately fertilized owing to a lack of technical
information. Some had water reserves in wells approximately 80 metres deep
but problems were compounded because they did not have adequate pumping
facilities to extract the water from such deep wells.
Jatropha achieves optimum production in its sixth year, and this is the
period when farmers start to recover their investment. Most of the crop
inthe project area was in its fourth and fifth year, and yields were still low,
themaximum benefits having not yet been realized.
Table 7.2 Responses concerning adequacy of services provision

Training Extension Inputs
Inadequate 2 3 2
Adequate 24 15 22
Very adequate 1 1 1
No response 2 10 4
Regarding financial returns, farmers complained that the sole company

purchasing their crop was paying low prices. Lack of investment was also a
constraint. The following comments highlight the farmers own perceptions
of the problems arising from physical infrastructure failings and technical/

technological support:
We need financial support for the installation and use of irrigation

technology.
We need to improve the irrigation system, develop wells, and improve

access to energy for processing.
We need pipes to transport water to the farm, we need pumps to extract

water from wells, we also want to learn how to use and manage pesticides.
We need fertilizers, training, better tools, pumps to move water, irrigation

technology for increased production.
The seed production has dropped due to lack of water, we got an electric
water pump but we need help to install it.
We need assistance with purchasing equipment as well as marketing our

product.
We get little seed from the project; we need more seed to increase
production to be profitable.
Knowledge management and technology

Misinformation and lack of training were mentioned by participants as
constraints. From the beginning of the project farmers used one type of seed
that is common in the area. This single variety is usually attacked by fungal
diseases that reduce yields. Farmers indicated that they had been made to believe
that jatropha was not prone to pests and drought. Experience pointed to the
contrary; many farmers also experienced pests which attacked the crop.
Unrealistic expectations undermined the confidence of the farmers:
When the project started we had false expectations that jatropha was not
affected by pests. When the pests started to attack the crop, a lot of farmers
were disappointed and abandoned the crop.
Farmers were also disillusioned by the poor returns compared with the
labour demands of the crop.
The price at which we sell the jatropha does not represent all the work
required and the money spent to make it grow.
The price of jatropha needs to be increased to cover costs of everything

that is done in the field (inputs and labour costs).
At the time of the research, it was evident that a small percentage of farmers
were likely to pull out of the project if support were not forthcoming for
necessary infrastructure, irrigation, fertilizers, harvesting, and market access.
Sustainability
Since it takes five to six years for jatropha to be ready to harvest, it is necessary
for farmers to haveother seasonal crops to assist with income generation

while waiting forthecrop to mature. Doubts about the appropriateness of
jatropha for prevailing livelihood systems were suggested by a key informant:
Thecultivation of jatropha among the farmers is not very desirable because
one must wait five years to see a proper return to make profits (key informant,
agro-processing).
Farmers made wide-ranging comments about the introduction of jatropha
into their productive systems. For example: We need to learn to improve
agricultural production of other crops such as squash and bell pepper.
Farmers also need to consider jatropha since it generates income that helps
the family budget.
Removing project support was said to be likely to create risks that farmers
would abandon their crops, since they could not absorb all the production
costs alone.
Public support
Farmers also criticized the lack of institutional development in terms of
overarching government strategy and post-harvest development activities for
the sector:
There is need for greater involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture to

continue to support farmers through extension services.
There is need to further investigate how to increase extraction of oil to

more than 30 per cent from the oil cake.
We need to disseminate information on the use of biopesticide for crops

because it is an organic product.
There is need to investigate how to detoxify the cake of jatropha for use
as stock-feed for cattle.
More research is needed on the cultivation of jatropha; you also need

more research on the cake of jatropha and the use of latex.
A key informant from the regional agriculture directorate added: Theproject

should be strengthened to maximize the capacity of farmers through training,
incentives, financing.
Interviewees reported inadequacies in the package of technologies for
handling pests and diseases, and also commented that skills in negotiating and
marketing still needed to be improved. The long-term nature of investment
in the production of jatropha was highlighted by another key informant
fromthe public-sector national agricultural research institute: It is too early
for the project to end, its life span must go up to at least ten years, so that it
sees farmers through one harvest.
Impacts
Strengths
The project had a series of positive impacts in terms of human-capital creation

among farmers and in the formation of social-capital value chain linkages.
Farmers learned new techniques of management of jatropha including
pruning, use of organic manure, biopesticide use, and intercropping short-term
cash crops with jatropha to sustain incomes during the investment stage of
the crop. Jatropha was also adopted for the development of live fences.
There was important evidence of value chain development in terms of
new products, market destinations, and value addition. The biopesticide
niche market for jatropha was starting to look very attractive to entre-
preneurs and farmers enabling them to find a wider market for the seeds.
Another important development was the farmers own manufacture of
organic fertilizer called BIOL made from elements found easily on the farm.
Nevertheless, the commercial processor was also dedicated to marketing
the oil and marketing the by-products for other uses such as the growing
market for biopesticide using the plants properties as a fungicide and insect
repellent. It has also encouraged farmers to start developing their own
organic fertilizers.
Farmers entry into beekeeping was reported to have resulted in signifi-
cantly increased crop yields through better pollination. The diversification
also introduced a new source of income and livelihood for farmers who could
both consume and sell the honey.
Farmer associations were strengthened and new organizations were
formed, for example the Association of Agricultural Producers Motupana
Pion (ASAMPRO) and the Agricultural Producers Association of Monteria
in Lambayeque. These were formed by 32 farmers who were active partici-
pants in the project. Social interaction was said to have improved because
farmers attended agricultural-association meetings.
Interviews also suggested a number of benefits through the reinvestment of
income in household assets, minor improvements in housing infrastructure,
and the acquisition of new physical agricultural assets. In Lambayeque,
respondents said they had not acquired any assets over the duration of the
project but improvements to the homes of farmers were known to have been
made and some farmer participants also bought new properties. There were
positive impacts on the wider economy as the demand for agricultural labour
to harvest jatropha seed also grew.
Weaknesses
For farmers, jatropha is one element among other livelihood activities
such as food production and other income generation and is undertaken
within an institutional environment which needs a higher level of broad-
based sectoral support: competitive markets, accompanying technological
development in production and processing, and appropriate information,

research, and training.
A series of technical and project-design weaknesses was also evident. Farmers
comments highlighted the importance of considering the development of

jatropha as just one part of an agricultural system, and production as one element
of an integrated value chain with considerable downstream functions.
Another significant issue was the targeting of smallholders. Most farmers
participating in the project in Lambayeque were from the middle-income
stratum, some had parallel occupations, others were also traders and most
were farming food crops for income generation.
Value chain linkages emerged as a result of the project, but were not
entirely successful. An agreement with a public-transport company was made,
leading to the purchase of engine conversion kits for pure vegetable oil fuel.
Unfortunately, technical problems developed with the conversions and there
was limited demand for oilseed for vehicle fuel or for power generators.
In terms of market structure, monopoly and monopsony power was
evident: at the time of research there was only one commercial company
responsible for buying the seeds and undertaking processing for oil extraction
and marketing of the biofuel. The processor was also the only source of seeds
for planting.
Farmers were aware of the uncompetitive nature of sales and had demanded
that the sale price of the seed be increased (by three times). They expected
more of the cooperative and argued that there should be regulation setting
the price for farmers to obtain at least 15 per cent profit after the sale of
jatropha. The processors market power was considered to affect the terms
ofthe exclusive purchasing agreements: farmers were disadvantaged by the
fixed seed price, and were aware of the risk that was transferred to the farmer
rather than shared by the processor.
Conclusions
These findings were endorsed in a final project report (GIZ 2013). The report
acknowledged that it was a risky venture characterized by high uncertainties
and lack of knowledge about important issues, especially the development of
the energy markets and the suitability of the jatropha plant as an economic
viable alternative for small farmers (GIZ, 2013: 3). The desire to provide partic-
ipation opportunities to smallholder farmers in renewable-energy markets was
admirable but the experimental nature of the project made the design and
implementation imperfect.
The political and environmental objectives of the project have not been
evaluated here. For all the complexities of the project, it is unsurprising
that the sustainability of the value chain model was not in any way assured
atthe time of the analyses. The report acknowledges that the many local
constraints to smallholder participation and small-enterprise development
were too serious to be overcome by the project intervention; similarly the
human-capital weaknesses, the novel mono-cropping approach, high costs

of support to a small and fragmented farmer base, unequal risk-bearing,
aseries of technical production issues already covered, and the agro-industrial
and market weaknesses. In a quote which summarizes the human capacity

challenges: It is not possible to change from a subsistence economy mentality
to a management mentality, if this process is not accompanied by ongoing
advice and training of new skills (GIZ, 2013: 16).
For our purposes, there are a number of specific lessons learned from the
project design and implementation which could help future interventions:
development of appropriate production technologies and infra-

structure, some of which required further research before project
implementation;
delivery of comprehensive information, and appropriate knowledge
extension to build the capacities and skills of project participants;
analysis of the equity implications of the economic conditions of
prevailing market structures;
formulation of appropriate contractual or regulatory institutions to
redress undue market power and unequal-bearing;
a lengthened project cycle framework which acknowledges the extended
time-frame for: (1) the development of human skills; (2) sectoral growth
towards maturity of supply and demand; and (3) growth of the industrial
demand and bio-transport sector.
Similar challenges have been observed in other, related projects (Poole,

2010; Poole et al., 2010), which add weight to the imperative to rethink
project-design processes long before project implementation.
Overall, this was a complex programme, with multisectoral interven-
tions in production, processing, transport, capacity building, and market
development. While it was helpful to recognize the integrated nature of the
necessary components for the project to succeed, the challenges exceeded
thecapacity of the implementing organization.
The relatively short time frame of the programme was insufficient to
enable sustainable changes, which is a common failing in social-development
projects in Latin America and elsewhere (Donovan et al., 2017).
References
Brittaine, R. and Lutaladio, N. (2010). Jatropha: A Smallholder Bioenergy Crop.
The Potential for Pro-Poor Development. Integrated Crop Management Vol. 8,
International Fund for Agricultural Development/Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Degail, A.-C. and Chantry, J. (2013). Developing jatropha projects with
smallholder farmers: conditions for a sustainable win-win situation for
farmers and the project developer. Field Actions Science Reports [Online]
(Special Issue 7). Retrieved 23 May 2017, from https://factsreports.revues.
org/2182.
Donovan, J., Blare, T. and Poole, N. (2017). Stuck in a rut: emerging cocoa
cooperatives in Peru and the factors that influence their performance.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15(2): 169184 <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1286831>.
GIZ (2013). Production of Oleaginous Plants and Commercializatiion of Natural
Vegetable Oils as Substitutes for Diesel Fuel for Public Transportation in Peru
and Honduras (CFC/FIGOOF/26). Retrieved 18 November 2016, from
http://common-fund.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Projects/FIGOOF/
FIGOOF_26/1.Technical_Report_Project_FIGOOF_26.pdf.
Poole, N.D. (2010). Zambia Cassava Sector Policy: Recommendations in support
of strategy implementation. EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 16. Rome, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 21 February 2017,
Poole, N.D., Chitundu, M., Msoni, R. and Tembo, I. (2010). Constraints to
Smallholder Participation in Cassava Value Chain Development in Zambia.
EU-AAACP Paper Series. No. 15. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Retrieved 21 February 2017, from http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/eastafrica/FAO_AAACP_Paper_Series_
No_15_Constraints_to_smallholder_participa%C3%83__1_.pdf.
CHAPTER 8
Sisal product and market development

in Tanzania
This study examines a project that built on a legacy of colonial-era sisal-sector
development in Tanzania. It was a complex project integrating various production,
marketing, and product-transformation services. We focus here on the agricultural-
development components. The design and delivery of project technical services
and capacity building were criticized by participants, even though some partici-
pants acknowledged several livelihood improvements, and increases in the scale
of production were noted. The challenges of building a complex value chain with
significant processing demands and market development in an uncertain external
environment were not addressed.
Keywords: asset building, processing, value chain, project design and

implementation, external environment, Tanzania
Project context
Sisal (Agave sisalana) is a robust plant which can grow under adverse environ-
mental conditions and produces a fibre for transformation into products such
as rope, twine, carpets, yarn, and newer products such as paper. The case for
there being market potential for a sustainable, renewable natural resource is
strong (Shamte, undated). The production of sisal in Tanzania dates back to
the era of German East Africa in the 19th century. Historically a plantation
crop, there have been efforts to increase participation by smallholders since
the early 1960s and the potential contribution of sisal to smallholder farming
and wider economic development has been recognized (FAO Committee on
Commodity Problems, 2013).
The project was designed to develop new sisal and henequen productsand
build the market for these products. The project had a multi-pronged and
integrated value chain development approach, embracing both agricultural
improvement and industrial product-development, both of which were
supported by appropriate research efforts.
Project activities were implemented in Tanzania and Kenya during the
period January 1997 to December 2005. Both countries have large smallholder
farmer sectors and long-standing aspirations to encourage farmers to engage
in commercial markets and contribute to wider sectoral development in order
to escape the trap of the subsistence economy. The analysis here is based only
on the research undertaken in Tanzania.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.008
In the 1960s, Tanzania was the largest producer of sisal in the world, but the
industry suffered declines in output in subsequent decades. The potential for
this endemic crop remains, and the industry weaknesses of inadequate research
and development, and poor marketing arrangements, have been recognized

for some time (Kimaro et al., 1994).
The project had five main components, namely:
Component 1: Agricultural development. Development of new sisal varieties

and improvement of cultivation practices.
Component 2: Product processing. Utilization of fibre-extraction waste for
animal-feed production and for biogas and electricity generation.
Component 3: Knowledge and capacity development. Research and
development on sisal processing for pulpable fibre.
Component 4: Market development. Market studies and trials to establish
the demand for sisal pulp and to identify potential buyers of the
products.
Component 5: Extension. Dissemination of project results.
This analysis has focused on the first component of improving agricul-

tural production by smallholder farmers of fibre for both traditional and new
uses. It was expected that, ifproduced and processed at competitive prices,
sisal would have new market opportunities, in particular as a reinforcement
fibre in the large and growing paper-pulp market. The activities concentrated
on varietal selection, farming systems for sisal, evaluation of best agricultural
practices, and plant multiplication by meristematic tissue culture in order to
reduce production costs, improve productivity, and increase returns to labour
and capital. Anintermediate output was the attempt to identify an appropriate
smallholder sisal outgrower model scheme for large-scale sisal estates.
Findings
Questionnaire sample
A total of 40 farmers from Korongwe District in Tanga region were interviewed,
20 each from two commercial estates. Respondent categories and numbers
are shown in Table 8.1.
All the farmers interviewed were heads of family except one female who was
a spouse. Thirty-four households considered themselves to be middle-income.
Table 8.1 Respondent categories and numbers

District Estate Project beneficiaries Stakeholders
Korongwe Male Female Total
Hale 15 5 20
Mwelya 16 4 20 14
Total 31 9 40 14
SISAL PRODUCT AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA 151

Age category Level of education Date of organization Years living
membership in the area
2530 1 Primary 25 Pre-2000 2 <10 3

3050 23 High school 7 200007 35 1030 8
>50 16 Diploma 3 Post-2008 1 3050 14
University 2 >50 12
Three households considered themselves poor and the other three households
very poor. Other beneficiary characteristics are presented in Table 8.2,
illustrating the relatively advanced age of participants, relatively low levels of
education, and long-standing presence in the region. Most respondents lived
within five miles of a road and the produce collection point and a service
centre. The most distant lived 1518 kilometres away.
Household assets
Respondents were asked to indicate significant assets they had before and after
the project. In assessing the magnitude of change in household assets, the
responses were classified as follows:
no change no household asset purchases;

minor change minor purchase of consumption goods (TV, radio,
bicycle);
major change/upgrades investments in one or more major assets
(house, car, motor cycle).
A total of 14, or 40 per cent, of the respondents recorded major upgrades

in household assets. Nine households (26 per cent) had minor increases in
household assets while 12 households (34 per cent) had no asset upgrades.
Some of the respondents in this category indicated that they had not yet started
harvesting their sisal and therefore had not benefited from sisal sales.
Agricultural assets
In assessing agricultural assets, respondents were asked to indicate what
significant agricultural assets they had before and after the project. Responses
were classified as follows: no change, minor, moderate, or major upgrades:
none/no change no increase in agricultural assets;

minor hand tools, up to 5 sheep/goats;
major up to 2 bovids (cattle/ox), tractor, trailer.
A total of eight households, or 29 per cent of the respondents, recorded

major changes in agricultural assets; seven households (25 per cent) had
minor increases in agricultural assets and the remaining 11 households
(39per cent) had no changes in agricultural assets, including the respondents

who indicated that they had not yet made any sisal sales: My income has
not yet changed. I have not yet had any sales because I have not yet started
harvesting my sisal.
Access to land
Most households reported an increase of agricultural land under cultivation
during the projects. The mean land area devoted to agricultural production
initially was 2.3 hectares, rising to 12.4 hectares.
The yields were mostly less than 2 tonnes per hectare, much lower
thanpotential yields, which were estimated to be 4 tonnes per hectare.
Onekey informant, a plant protection specialist from an agricultural research
institute, commented: Current yields for smallholder farmers are low. With
good husbandry practices (good planting material, preparation of nurseries
and not planting suckers), smallholder farmers can achieve the potential
yield of 4 tonnes per hectare.
Project services
A total of 25 farmers (63 per cent) indicated that they had received training,
35 (88 per cent) had received extension support, and 17 (43 per cent)
received planting material from the project. Respondents were asked about
the adequacy of the services provided by the project. The majority of the
responses were negative: 61 per cent of the farmers rated the adequacy of
thetraining offered by the project as inadequate; 60 per cent rated extension
as inadequate; and 88 per cent rated the provision of inputs (planting
material)as inadequate. No participants indicated that the level of services
provision was very adequate. These findings were supported by qualitative
information from the smallholder farmers:
The project should have disseminated more knowledge on good sisal

husbandry.
More extension services should have been given focusing on increasing

sisal production knowledge and skills.
The project should have put more emphasis on technology for planting
material of sisal and equipment. Currently, we are using sisal suckers
instead of using pure materials.
Key informants observed:
The project did not have sufficient funding to support training, inputs
and extension to the smallholder farmers (executive director, agro-
processing firm and former national project officer).
Leaf spot disease (korogwe) is still a problem which has not been
addressed and this affects the quality of sisal fibre. There is need for
continuous research on the issue (sisal plant-protection specialist,

agricultural research institute).
All the respondents indicated that pests and diseases were a major constraint
(particularly the korogwe leaf spot) and were inadequately addressed by the
project. Access to credit was also viewed as one of the most inadequately
addressed issues; 84 per cent of the farmers who responded to the question rated
it inadequate: The project should have provided loans to assist land preparation,
planting, and harvesting and Credit to meet farmers farming operations
(field maintenance and purchase of inputs) should have been addressed.
One key informant commented: Lack of credit is a major constraint
affecting both the sisal production and productivity in the smallholder sector
(sisal plant protection specialist, agricultural research institute).
The training on post-harvest handling skills was rated only inadequate or
adequate. Actual post-harvest handling, for storage and for the decorticator/
brushing facilities, was generally perceived to be adequate as this wereprovided
by a private agro-processing firm.
Other constraints that were highlighted during interviews were the high
production and processing costs, and the competition for labour with other
sectors, which contributed to the high costs.
Adequacy of marketing
Farmers did not perceive price formation to be straightforward. The small-
holders produced and marketed leaf sisal but the price paid to the farmers was
based on the fibre content. The processing of the leaf into fibre was undertaken
by a private agro-processor which was responsible for most marketing
functions. From the qualitative information collected, respondents indicated
that the issues of product prices received by farmers and the costs of transport
needed to be addressed. Farmers should be represented in the marketing and
setting of prices so that they can receive a fair price.
One key informant commented about the unrealized opportunity for
smallholders to add value: Farmers could get a better price if they were selling
fibre as opposed to the leaf. Processing costs take 60 per cent and the farmer
gets the remaining 40 per cent (official, Sisal Farmers Association/Tanzania
Sisal Board).
On transport, farmers felt that the leaf transportation service should be
improved by the private agro-processor, because there were not enough vehicles:
Leaf transportation should be improved, there are not enough vehicles/
tractors to meet demand of farmers.
Financial assets
Data on actual income gained were incomplete. However, respondents were
asked whether there was income gain as a result of the project. A total of
22farmers out of the 32 farmers who responded to the question were positive.
Five farmers indicated there was no change in their income. The reasons
given were that the area under sisal was still small while input costs were
high and therefore they were only able to break even. One key informant
also commented: Major constraints that have limited production are the high
input costs relating to clearing land, high cost of labour and lack of access to
credit to fund sisal-farming operations (group manager, agro-processor).
Social assets
A total of 38 of the 40 farmers interviewed indicated that they had joined
the smallholder producer organizations. Some farmers in Mwelya Estate
indicated that they were members of the Savings and Credit Union. One
smallholder farmer commented: My income has increased. I can now make
savings with the Savings and Credit Union.
Conclusions
The project facilitated smallholder farmers to participate in commercially
oriented sisal production activities. Sisal has increased some smallholder
earnings in the drought-prone areas.
While the project design addressed partially the issue of access to land,
other production aspects (inputs, technical issues) were not satisfactorily
addressed. Training in sisal husbandry was inadequate, extension support
was weak, and there was lack of access to credit. These factors have had an
impact on the production and productivity of sisal by smallholder farmers.
Securing adequate land-tenancy arrangements, as opposed to land access,
was incomplete because farmers did not have title deeds to the land for use
as collateral for lending. This constrained their access to credit. One key
informant commented: A major constraint that limits farmers participation
in the market is that farmers do not have title deeds to the land and this
has limited their access to credit (official, Sisal Farmers Association/Tanzania
Sisal Board).
Human asset formation was inadequate: the project did not adequately
address farmers production and post-harvest skills. Provision of servicesto
farmers was also deficient: there was a perceived lack of adequate transport
to take produce from the farm to the processing facility. Not only was
the weakness in the value chain link between producers and processor
responsible for insufficient services and inputs, but inefficiencies also
impaired product quality at both production and processing stages:
The quality of fibre from smallholder producers is generally low due

to poor husbandry practices. In cases where the farmers decorticate
the leaves themselves with no water, the quality deteriorates further
(keyinformant, Sisal Association of Tanzania).
The issue of targeting is also significant in this case study. Project benefi-
ciaries were selected on a voluntary basis. There was an advertisement and
anybody was free to apply. Personal data collected reflect that some partici-
pants were formally employed elsewhere and some had university degrees but
there were also some low-income smallholder farmers. The question of who
is targeted is important and has implications for the design of programmes

aimed at alleviating poverty.
The complex design of the project included a set of different initiatives
covering agricultural and industrial sectors. There were difficulties in
delivery of certain components which were dependent on lagging results of
others. Some components would have had better impact if they had been
separate, focused projects. The major weakness of the smallholder farming
system sub-component was that the issue of the productive capacity of the
smallholder farmers in terms of the productive skills of growers, extension
support, and other supply-side constraints such as access to inputs was not
satisfactorily addressed.
The impact of these complexities can only be hinted at because they
were not all the subject of this assessment. Nevertheless, given the
geographical location of these semi-arid areas, sisal cultivation provided
one of the few viable agricultural production initiatives for low-income
farmers to supplement on-farm food production and generate cash incomes.
Productiveassets, in the form of better access to more land, were increased,
but the supply of knowledge and technology to remote areas in order to
leverage these productive assets was found to be problematic. It was evident
that investment in human-asset skills for development of the new production
systems received inadequate attention.
There was a transformational outcome for some farmers, with a degree
of professionalization within agriculture as non-farmers became farmers.
Therewere also scale effects as some smallholder farmers increased the size
of their land holdings. There were income gains for most of the smallholder
farmers. Nevertheless, given the long production cycle of the crop (three to
four years), some farmers acknowledged that they had not yet received an
income, so it was not possible to evaluate economic benefits overall. A longer
timescale is necessary to assess how the project would bring financial benefits
to participants, and probably also to realize the potential productivity increases
from technical and technological improvements to production systems.
Social assets were boosted by the interventions. Smallholder farmers
were able to organize themselves into groups and cooperative entities.
This boost to social capital strengthened their position, and they gained
the capacity to lobby with estate management and other entities for better
returns from sisal cultivation. Integration of farmers into savings systems
was a significant advantage for household risk management and financial
asset building. Fornon-participants, there was a boost to the local economy
through employment opportunities generated for sisal planting, weeding,
and harvesting.
Regarding the external environment, the link to private enterprise was
positive, but the monopsonistic/monopolistic nature of the relationship
failed to create competition in the market for services delivery and product
sales. Greater foresight concerning wider market structures and the implica-
tions of economic power for benefit distribution could have led to more equal
and beneficial contractual arrangements.

Such commodity-development projects have to take into account the wider
context within which interventions and activities are implemented, and the
external factors which, inevitably, will condition the outcomes of different
participants. Successful smallholder participation is predicated on building a
viable value chain. Sisal is an example of a crop that smallholders can success-
fully grow, but whose viability and sustainability depends on the complex
downstream processing and marketing functions.
References
FAO Committee on Commodity Problems (2013). Potential Constraints to
Smallholder Integration into the Developing Sisal Value Chain in Tanzania.
CCP:HF/JU 13/3. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Kimaro, D., Msanya, B.M. and Takamura, Y. (1994). Review of sisal production
and research in Tanzania. African Study Monographs 15(4): 227242.
Shamte, S. (undated). Overview of the Sisal and Henequen Industry: A Producers
Perspective. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Rome, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 March 2017, from http://
www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y1873E/y1873e05.htm.
CHAPTER 9
Strengthening the productivity

and competitiveness of smallholder
dairying in Zambia
Dairying is an important means of bringing economic benefits to smallholders.
This study examines a dairy project in Zambia that was successfully integrated
farmers into the dairy sector, with increases in productivity and value addition.
Animportant question remaining is the targeting of the participants, who were not
particularly poor households but who were more likely to be able to bear the risk of
increased investment in livestock production.
Keywords: dairy, productivity, value addition, value chain, targeting, risk
Project design and implementation

Livestock projects have considerable potential to increase animal-source foods
and incomes for small-scale producers (Flores-Martinez et al., 2016; Maestre
etal., 2017). In particular, dairy interventions are a common andobvious way
of improving incomes and livelihoods of poor people (Rawlins etal.,2014;
Hoddinott et al., 2015). Jodlowski et al. (2016) recentlyreported a study
from 2012 in Zambia which showed that goat and cow distribution by Heifer
International led to improved food security through consumption of nutrient-
dense foods and also to improved incomes of participants.
The potential for multiplier effects from livestock projects is important, in
respect of benefits from value-adding activities such as transport and processing,
increased employment opportunities, and the benefits attributable to the
consumption of nutrient-intensive foodstuffs. However, livestock production is
not a panacea: seasonal effects, particularly in terms of water availability and feed
quality during the dry season, are often constraints to development of the livestock
sector, and can lead to losses in bad years. Important potential trade-offs are the
environmental consequences of poor management, particularly in emergency
situations. Jodlowski et al. (2016) also pointed out that the increased labour
requirement for dairy management may fall disproportionately on women, and
that it is a risky enterprise, not necessarily feasible for the poorest households.
Project context
The project analysed here was implemented in Lesotho and Zambia over a
four year period up to 2012, and was aimed at improving the productivity and
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.009
marketing position of smallholder dairy cooperatives. Resolving the problem

of dry-season feedstuffs was given particular attention. In Zambia, theimple-
menting agency was Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust and the
project targeted 730 smallholder dairy-farmer households in the five districts

of Kaloma, Choma, Monze, Magoye, and Mapepe. The three main project
components were:
Component 1: Production intensification. Promote improved and innovative

livestock feeding technologies for local production and conservation of
protein-rich feedstock focusing on the dry season (MayJune).
Component 2: Value and quality addition. Enhance milk quality and
hygiene to reduce wastage and increase shelf life and safety of the milk.
Component 3: Project extension. Improve information dissemination
through exchange visits, TV and radio programmes, field days, and
production of leaflets and pamphlets.
The direct beneficiaries of the project were the smallholder dairy farmers.
Secondary beneficiaries were considered to be the milk processors and also
consumers who benefited from increased local milk supplies and better-
quality milk.
Thirty-nine farmers (25 male and 14 female) from seven districts, mainly
in the southern provinces of Zambia, were interviewed. Respondent numbers
are shown in Table 9.1.
The majority of the farmers interviewed were male heads of families
(31 of the39 households were headed by men). Most of the farmers were over
50years of age and the level of education was very high; most had completed
secondary education and had also attained a tertiary qualification in the form
of a certificate or a diploma. Further, the majority of these farmers had lived
in these districts for more than 10 years (Table 9.2).
The mean distances of the respondents from the main road and the milk-
collection point were both just over 5 kilometres, a relatively small distance
for transport given adequate facilities, and the mean distance to the major
service centre was about 18 kilometres.
Table 9.1 Farmer geographical distribution

Districts Number of beneficiaries interviewed
Kaloma 4
Chilanga 9
Kafue 1
Choma 4
Southern Mazabuka 2
Monze 10
Mazabuka 9
Total 39
SMALLHOLDER DAIRYING PRODUCTIVITY IN ZAMBIA 159

Age category Level of Tertiary Date of Years living in
education qualifications organization the area
membership
2530 12 Primary 7 None 13 Pre-2000 2 <10 3
3050 1 High school 32 Certificate 17 200007 35 1030 21
>50 25 Diploma 8 Post-2008 1 3050 8
Degree 1 >50 6
Table 9.3 Changes in household assets and land utilization

Assets Before project After project
Bicycle 20 22
Radio 30 35
Television 23 32
Land utilization (ha)
Mean 10.2 13.9
Minimum 0.0 1.0
Maximum 100 100
Standard deviation 18.9 20.3
Findings
Household and agricultural assets
Respondents were asked to indicate significant household assets owned
before and after the project. Asset accumulation was indicated by increases in
ownership of bicycles, radio, and television sets after the project (Table 9.3).
Land utilization by respondents also increased from a mean of 10.2 hectares
to 13.9 hectares, attributed by farmers to the need for more land to grow feed
for the dairy cows. There was considerable variation among respondents.
Project services
A total of 37 of the sample of 39 farmers indicated having received training,
33 received extension support, 32 received feed-planting material, and
29 received information from the project. The majority of respondents
considered the services provision to be adequate and only 19 per cent considered
the services inadequate. Inputs and information provision scored very low
(Table 9.4).
Responses concerning the issues identified by participants as constraints
to the production of milk in the various districts varied. For example only
six farmers considered the distributed inputs to be inadequate, compared
with 20 who considered that the provision of credit was inadequate. A small
Table 9.4 Adequacy of project services provision

Training Extension Inputs: planting Information
material
Inadequate 4 14 10 2
Adequate 22 15 12 11
Very adequate 10 7 4 2
No response 2 3 13 24
majority considered that the constraints affecting production were addressed

adequately, against 30 per cent who felt that these issues were inadequately
addressed.
Post-harvest handling was generally perceived to be adequate across the
three attributes of skills, information, and storage. The provision of generators
by the project at milk-collection centres helped to cut milk storage losses
significantly, ensuring a consistent supply of fresh milk to the market.
With respect to a range of factors, the marketing of milk was considered
to have been adequately addressed. These factors covered milk quality
and consistency of supply, marketing information, supply-chain linkages,
collection, and transport. These improvements in the marketing of the
milk were attributed by farmers to collective selling, which ensured that all
theirmilk was purchased, unlike the situation previously, when they had
marketed the milk individually to the public and through local kiosks.
Improvement in market participation

A raft of indicators was used to evaluate the enhanced market participation
and productive capacity, these included farmers ability to supply more milk
(measured by an increase in the number of dairy cows), the survival rate of
calves, milk outputper cow, and the total amount of milk produced per day.
Thisinformation was further supported by interviews with major milk-
processing companies inZambia.
The farm-gate price for raw milk increased from US$0.300.35 per litre
in 2007 to US$0.500.60 in 2012. Moreover, milk intakes by the processors
from the smallholder dairy/milk-collection centres increased from 8 per
cent in 2007 to 20 per cent for one of the buyers, Parmalat. Dairy King
was the sole buyer of milk from Mapepe Dairy Cooperative and the intake
increased from 30 per cent in 2007 to 70 per cent in 2012. According
to officials from Parmalat and Dairy King, the quality of milk from the
smallholder dairy farmers/milk-collection centres improved from Grade
C to Grades A and B. Industrial buyers noted that quality was enhanced
by the provision of milk cooler tanks and this was sustained by the
provision of generators by the project which dramatically reduced milk
spoilage: by 90100 per cent compared to before the project when all milk
went to waste because of electricity power failure/load shedding. This is
important evidence of value addition through improved milk quality and

processing which resulted from both technical advances and effective
investment in value chain linkages. The benefits of this were shared by the
primary producers.
The increased price range and the enhanced value chain linkages
were seen as sustainable, resulting in net returns to farmers of more than
US$0.25per litre, making smallholder dairy a sustainable source of daily
disposable income. It must be noted that the improved participation of
dairy farmers cannot solely be attributed to this project, as a number of
projects had been implemented in the past and some even overlapped with
this project.
Viability of milk collection centres

There was an improvement in utilization of installed milk-cooling capacity
from 22 per cent in 2007, when the project had just started, to 68 per cent
in the dry season and 100 per cent in the peak period in 2012. This was also
reflected in increased incomes generated at the milk-collection centres.
Changes in the number of dairy cows

Of the 39 respondents, nine had no dairy cows before the project. Herd sizes
increased, and 32 of the respondents attributed the increase in the number of
their dairy cows to the project (Table 9.5).
Productivity measures
An increase in the survival rate of calves was attributed by most respondents to
the activities of the project, which helped to enhance animal husbandry.
Milk production per cow rose significantly from a mean of 4.1 litres to
8.4litres per day. With increased cow numbers and increased productivity,
participating farmers saw total milk output per day rise from an average of
29.8litres to 81.3 litres.
Milk losses were eliminated through the installation of generators by the
project: the mean loss of 30 per cent fell to zero per cent.
Table 9.5 Changes in dairy herd size

Herd size Before project After project Percentage change
0 9 0 100
1 to 5 18 6 66.6
6 to 10 5 11 120
11 to 49 4 19 375
Greater than 50 1 1 0
Conclusions
The project facilitated farmers penetration into the commercial milk-production
chain in Zambia. The productive capacity of the dairy farmers improved

significantly and post-harvest handling also improved significantly and this
is reflected by a dramatic reduction in milk losses and also an improvement
in milk quality. The collective system helped to boost the marketing of milk
since, as most of the farmers pointed out, this arrangement has helped provide
farmers with an assured milk outlet. Overall, the project components had a
positive impact, although there were weaknesses, and not all the benefits
could be attributed to the specific intervention. Delivery of infrastructure and
logistics components appears to have been more effective than that of the
softer human-capital skills and technical and advisory services to the farmers
themselves. We are unable to comment on the feedstuff component directly,
but the evidence of increased animal reproduction and survival rates, and
increased milk productivity suggests that this important component was not
a constraint to the success of the project.
The favourable project environment was attributable to the involvement
of government, the private sector, and donors, which created a positive
and comprehensive institutional environment that complemented the
project and made it possible for this intervention to yield positive results.
Ofparticular significance was the creation of efficient value-adding chain
linkages between the key actors, and the creation of employment opportu-
nities within processing links in the chain.
One curious and unsatisfactory feature of the project remains to be
discussed. The selection of the participants for this project was not clearly
defined and articulated. The target group was meant to be smallholder
farmers; however, without a proper or agreed definition of a smallholder
farmer, it is difficult to tell whether some of the project beneficiaries were
supposed to be included in this project. The profile of beneficiaries was not
typical of smallholder farmers needing improved market access: of the sample
of farmers interviewed, more than half were over the age of 50, and many
had tertiary education qualifications. Doubts persist about the targeting and
additionality of the project.
Targeting of agricultural projects designed to benefit poor peoples is an issue
of general importance. It becomes more complicated in the case of livestock
projects. As noted by Jodlowski et al. (2016), livestock-development projects
are capital-intensive and relatively high risk, as well as potentially high reward
in terms of nutritional, health, and economic benefits to say nothing of
the benefits arising from integrated livestockagriculture systems, and the
savings and insurance function of livestock. There is a danger of impover-
ishment when a project goes wrong such as the loss of a market in the case
of Ethiopia and it can be argued that livestock production is too risky for the
most vulnerable rural people because of multiple threats, not least from costly
losses through disease, theft, and adverse climatic conditions.
Summarizing: there were significant improvements to the productive

capacity of the dairy farmers, with better handling systems that brought
about big reductions in milk losses and improvements in milk quality, and
valuable price premiums. The value chain was strengthened through effective
collective organization which facilitated processing and marketing. In terms
of physical capital, significant investment was evidently attributable to the
project. Investment in farmers human assets was more limited.
References
Flores-Martinez, A., Zanello, G., Shankar, B. and Poole, N. (2016). Reducing
anemia prevalence in Afghanistan: socioeconomic correlates and the
particular role of agricultural assets. PLoS One 11(6): e0156878 <https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156878>.
Hoddinott, J., Headey, D. and Dereje, M. (2015). Cows, missing milk markets,
and nutrition in rural Ethiopia. Journal of Development Studies 51(8): 958975
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1018903>.
Jodlowski, M., Winter-Nelson, A., Baylis, K. and Goldsmith, P.D. (2016).
Milk in the data: food security impacts from a livestock field experiment
in Zambia. World Development 77: 99114 <https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2015.08.009>.
Maestre, M., Poole, N. and Henson, S. (2017). Assessing food value chain
pathways, linkages and impacts for better nutrition of vulnerable groups.
Food Policy 68: 3139 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.007>.
Rawlins, R., Pimkina, S., Barrett, C.B., Pedersen, S. and Wydick, B. (2014). Got
milk? The impact of Heifer Internationals livestock donation programs in
Rwanda on nutritional outcomes. Food Policy 44: 202213 <https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.003>.
CHAPTER 10
Assessing the impact of projects

onsmallholder participation in agricultural
markets: Synthesis and conclusions
In this chapter we present a synthesis and comparative analysis of the studies
presented in Chapters 69 based on a regression study of the data for all four cases.
Overall conclusions are presented.
Keywords: regression analysis, asset changes, information and training,

capacity development, project impacts, market participation, threshold,
targeting, project design and implementation, sustainability
Recapitulating the theory of change: expected relationships

In the previous chapters we used sets of descriptive statistics to describe
and compare variables that influenced smallholder farmers access to
markets. This chapter gives an account of a quantitative analysis based on a
regression technique to test factors affecting improvements in market access.
Thesefactors refer to the five asset indicators developed in Chapter 5 and
illustrated in Figure 5.1. Improved market access was defined as an increase in
the price received for the produce as well as improvements in terms of quality
and quantity. All this information was collected from the field surveys.
Thedependent variable was the natural log of the probability of improved
access to market divided by the probability of no improvements (1-P). In this
case, a maximum likelihood estimation was preferred as it yields consistent,
efficient, and asymptotically normal estimators (for further information on
the quantitative methodology, see Amrouk et al. 2013).
With respect to the expected signs of the independent variables, it was
hypothesized that positive changes in household assets as a result of project
activities are positively related to the probability of improved market access
of the participating smallholders. Ownership of household assets such as a
radio, bicycle, and motorbikes increase farmers access to information and
their likelihood of participating in markets. Extension services delivered
under the projects covered a wide range of activities ranging from crop
husbandryto dissemination of information on input supplies and product
markets. Thus, access to extension services was expected to positively
influence the probability of participation in markets. Similarly, smallholders
who had access to credit were considered more likely to acquire factor
inputs and thus more likely to participate in output markets. For example,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.010
the establishment of a revolving loan fund was expected to be positively

associated with the probability that smallholders would improve their
market participation. Access to productive assets such as planters, cultivators,
and technology should enhance the ability of farmers to generate marketable

production surpluses. Thus, a build-up of productive assets through the
projects would increase the probability of successful market participation.
Likewise, project activities which developed skills in cropping, marketing,
and farm management would be likely to create enabling conditions for
smallholders to enter markets. Increased skills, therefore, were expected to
relate positively to the dependent variable. Finally, farm and household
characteristics, such as education, wealth, age, farm size, and location were
assumed to influence positively the probability of improved market access.
The location variable captured regions with higher potential as a result of, for
example, more suitable soil types, climate, and local market structure.
A number of lessons can be drawn from the determinants of successes and
failures of the projects. The next section discusses comparative findings based
on the qualitative and quantitative analyses.
Lessons learned
Overall results
Overall, project activities had a positive impact on market participation.
Inorder to assess empirically how changes in asset indicators influenced
market participation, a logit regression analysis was applied to the entire
set of survey data. The selected independent variables covered the asset
indicators from the livelihood assessment approach as described in Table 10.1.
This shows summary and comparative results for all cases broken down into
the five livelihood assets: natural, human, social, physical, and financial.
Household and farm characteristics contributing significantly to the model
were added on the basis of the resulting goodness of fit measured by the log
likelihood chi-square. Also, variables with multicollinearity were identified
and droppedfrom the model.
The variables education, wealth, farm size, district, and age of the household
were found to improve the explanatory power of the model. The resulting
odds ratios and standard errors are shown in Table 10.2. The likelihood ratio
chi-square of 46.4 with a p-value less than 0.05 shows that the resulting
model as a whole fits significantly better than a model with no independent
variables. This means that the explanatory variables included contribute
jointly towards explaining smallholders market participation patterns. Access
to extension services and training, expansion in private productive agricultural
assets, access to credit, district, farm size, age of the household, and wealth had
significant influence on market access. All these variables were significant at
the 10 per cent level, except for the variables access to credit and district, which
were significant at the 5 percent level.
PROJECT IMPACT: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS 167
Table 10.1Impact of projects

Asset Ethiopia Peru Tanzania Zambia
indicators
Natural Positive. Land Positive changes. Access to land 82% of

devoted to green The scale was increased and respondents
beans production of jatropha farmers adopted attributed
expanded production a new hybrid sisal increases in dairy
increased variety cows to project
Human Positive changes. Positive changes. Limited changes Positive changes.
Skills acquired New skills in human Farmers improved
in green-bean acquired in asset building skills in milk
production and crop husbandry as farmers production and
quality control. including pruning, had limited post-harvest
New market use of manure, production skills handling
exploited bioinsecticides, and extension
use of bees support
Social None. No Positive changes. Positive changes. Positive changes.
access to the Farmers formed Farmers able Farmers
market beyond agricultural to organize organized into
the project or associations, themselves into cooperatives to
sustainable social interaction cooperative sell milk in bulk
market linkages among farmers groups and for processing
improved unions
Physical Increases in Increases in Increases in Increases
agricultural physical and agricultural in physical
assets and agricultural assets and assets for most
household assets; household assets households
assets for most investments in
households housing
Financial Positive changes Income gains for There was There was
in incomes were some farmers. income gain for income gain for
noted Most were most smallholder most smallholder
expected to make farmers farmers
higher incomes
after sixth year of
production
A positive and significant relationship (p = 0.066) was found between

improvements in market access and the provision of extension services and
training. A shift from inadequate access to extension to adequate access to
extension increased the probability of improvements in market access from
0.280 to 0.865, which corresponds to a 58.5 percent increase (Table 10.3).
This result underlines the importance of extension services and training for
dissemination of knowledge, technology such as new crop varieties, and
improved farm practices.
Similarly, a positive and significant relationship was found between
changes in agricultural assets associated with the project and market
participation. Theprobability of improvements in market access increased by
Table 10.2Influence of asset indicators on market participation

Acc to market Odds ratio Std err z p<z 95% confidence interval
Hous_asset 0.985 0.064 0.22 0.827 0.867 1.120

Acc_ext 1.018 0.010 1.84 0.066 0.998 1.038
Acc_credit 5.175 3.967 2.14 0.032 1.151 23.254
Ag_asset 1.090 0.050 1.87 0.061 0.995 1.193
Skills 1.850 1.608 0.71 0.479 0.337 10.161
Farm_size 0.892 0.055 1.82 0.069 0.789 1.008
Age 0.175 0.112 2.72 0.006 0.050 0.614
District 1.506 0.212 2.91 0.004 1.143 1.985
Education 0.992 0.293 0.02 0.981 0.556 1.771
Wealth 10.887 15.270 1.7 0.089 0.696 170.136
Note:Logistic regression: Log likelihood = 34.16435; Number of obs = 84; LR chi2(7) =
46.4; Prob > chi2 = 0.000; Pseudo R2 = 0.4044.
The z-value or z-statistic is the regression coefficient divided by its standard error. A z-value
greater than 2 suggests that the statistic is significant.
A small p-value, commonly taken to be less than 0.05, also suggests that the relationship
between variables is significant.
Table 10.3 Probability changes in market access for changes in explanatory variables
Change in variable Probability Change in probability of market access
Access to extension
Inadequate to adequate 0.2800.865 +0.585
Access to credit
Inadequate to adequate 0.3480.924 +0.576
Wealth
Poor to middle-income 0.1210.729 +0.601
a factor of 1.1for smallholders who built up agricultural assets, such as livestock

and planters, asa result of their involvement in the projects, in comparison
with those who did not manage to build up productive assets. In many cases,
livestock sales provided smallholders with the liquidity necessary to purchase
fertilizer, high-yielding varieties, and other technologies to increase the
marketable surplus. The evidence shows that projects which build domestic
assets can generate significant returns to smallholders.
The variable credit was found to be significant (p = 0.032) and had the
expected positive sign, underlining the stimulating effect of project activities
that include the provision of financial services. An example was a revolving
loan fund for smallholders established in the case of the project in Ethiopia.
The analysis of the partial effect of the variable credit showed that a shift
from having inadequate access to credit to adequate access to credit increased
theprobability of improvements in market access from 0.348 to 0.924, or by
57.6 percent (Table 10.3).
The result from the logit regression also showed that the likelihood of
an improvement in market access increased with the geographic location,
or district. Smallholders located in districts with a tradition of commer-
cialization were more likely to engage in market transactions themselves.

Thevariable district was found to be positive and significant (p = 0.004)

(Table 10.2), with the probability of improvements in market access

increasing by a factor of 1.51for smallholders located in districts with
prevailing favourable agroecological conditions, socio-economic structure,
and/or other related agriculture and local factors (Table 10.3). A positive and
significant (p = 0.089) relationship was also found between market access
and wealth of the smallholders (Table10.2). Wealthy and better-endowed
smallholders were more likely to benefit from project activities and further
raise their level of market integration. In fact, ashift from being a poor
smallholder to a middle-income smallholder increased the probability of
improvements in market access from 0.121 to 0.729, or by 60.1 percent
(Table 10.3).
The variable farm size was found to be significant and have a negative
sign. This means that smallholders with large farms felt that project inter-
ventions did not enable them to improve their market participation.
This unexpected inverse relationship may have been due to diseconomies of
scale: for example, gains in land productivity and/or market sales were not
large enough to offset the costs associated with the increase in production.
Finally, the variable age of the household head was significant (p = 0.006)
and negatively related to market participation, suggesting project interven-
tions tended to benefit younger farmers more than older farmers (Table 10.2).
This is probably due to the ability of younger farmers to assimilate new techno
logies and innovative business practices more efficiently, enabling them to
overcome fixed market-access costs such as transaction costs. Other variables
such as change in household assets,skills, and education were not significant
at the 10 per cent level. However, their inclusion was found to improve the
logit model, suggesting that their association with other independent variables
contributes jointly to explaining smallholder market participation patterns.
Clearly, there were synergies among the different market-participation
indicators due to synergies and spillovers that exist across the various
dimensions of market participation: for example, stimulating access to credit
is likely to lead to greater access to inputs, improved technology adoption,
higher production, and better market linkages. Delivery of comprehensive
services is necessary to take advantage of this relationship. Considering
the importance of training and extension, a key challenge is to maintain
funding to extension units beyond the lifetime of the project, so that
gains in market access are sustained and further developed. Where funding
isinadequate for comprehensive service provision, and project design does
not recognize time constraints, the challenge for policy and project inter
ventions is to adequately select and prioritize the constraints that appear to
be the most limiting.
Impacts of projects on smallholder livelihoods

Project activities did have relatively significant positive effects on smallholder
livelihoods. In Ethiopia, it was not possible to compare income changes in the

absence of a baseline, but project beneficiaries acknowledged that revenues
and livelihoods improved, a situation they associated with the implemen-
tation of the project. Returns from the survey also showed that farmers were
able to increase the scale of agricultural production overall, while analysis
of assets suggested a number of benefits through reinvestment of income
in minor household assets, improvements in housing infrastructure, and
acquisition of new agricultural assets. There was also capacity building
among farmers: significant skills in production and post-harvest handling
were gained. The construction of two pack-houses was a major investment
for the cooperatives, enabling smallholders to process value added products
and local communities to benefit through the creation of new employment
at both the farm and processing levels.
In Peru, smallholders learned new techniques for the production of
jatropha, including pruning, use of organic manure, bioinsecticide use, and
use of bees that help to pollinate the crop. Beekeeping became a source of
additional income and improved livelihoods for farmers who consumed and
sold the honey in the market. The project also helped the development of a
bioinsecticide made from jatropha oil. This organic product has fungicidal
properties and can be used as an insect repellent. Given the opportunities
created by the expansion of organic agriculture, smallholders participating
in the project were able to generate extra income through the sale of organic
fertilizers. Farmers were also able to invest in household assets and make
improvements to housing infrastructure as well as acquiring new agricultural
assets. Finally, the demand for agricultural labour increased in the community
as a result of the project activities.
In the semi-arid environment of Tanzania, sisal cultivation provided
low-income farmers with an alternative agricultural activity that generated
a sustainable income to supplement food production. In addition, access
to land was increased, allowing some farmers to expand their agricultural
holdings and the overall scale of production. Results showed that sisal-project
activities enabled an increase in productive assets and led to income gains
for most participants. Smallholders were also able to organize themselves into
groups and cooperatives. This strengthened their position to lobby for better
inputandsisal prices. At the community level, demand for labour rose in
response to sisal planting, cultivation, and harvesting operations.
The project in Zambia showed that strengthening market participation of
dairy farmers could be achieved through the diffusion of innovative livestock-
feeding technologies and the conservation of protein-rich feedstock with a
focus on the dry seasons (MayJune). Milk production per cow rose signifi-
cantly from a mean of 4.1 litres to 8.4 litres per cow per day, a 104 per cent
increase. About 82 per cent of the respondents attributed this change to the
project. Milk quality increased, allowing for longer shelf life and improved
product safety. From a mean loss of 30 per cent, milk losses were eliminated as
a result of the installation of generators for cooling milk funded by the project.
At the community level, there was an increase in employment prompted by

increased production and processing of milk.
In the four case studies, improved access to privately held assets and
technology, along with knowledge of new production and post-harvesting
skills, helped raise overall productivity and access to markets. As shown in
Tables 10.4 and 10.5, both household and agricultural assets increased. Inthe
latter case, the number of assets was higher following the implementation
of the project activities, with the difference statistically significant at the
5 per cent level (Table 10.4). The increase reported in household assets due
to participants involvement in the project was statistically significant at the
5per cent level (Table 10.5). About 69 per cent of the respondents believed
that transfer of technology was appropriately provided during the project.
One of the key initiatives to expand privately held assets by smallholders was
to improve access to financial services such as credit and savings. In the case
Table 10.4 Paired t-test on access to agricultural assets

Variable obs Mean Std err. Std dev. [95% Conf. interval]
agAsset2 132 10.36364 1.823944 20.95552 6.75544 13.97183
agAsset1 132 6.621212 1.299279 20.95552 4.050929 9.191495
diff 132 3.742424 1.131153 12.99596 1.504734 5.980115
mean(diff) = mean(agAsset2 agAsset1) t = 3.3085
Ho: mean(diff) = 0 Degrees of freedom = 131
Ha: mean(diff) < 0 Ha: mean(diff) = 0 Ha: mean(diff) > 0
Pr(T < t) = 0.9994 Pr(T > t) = 0.0012 Pr(T > t) = 0.0006
Note: agAsset2: Frequency of agricultural assets after project implementation; agAsset1:
frequency of agricultural assets prior to project implementation
Table 10.5 Paired t-test on access to household assets

hAsset2 132 2.621212 0.371543 4.268704 1.88621 3.356213
hAsset1 132 1.962121 0.1715361 1.970799 1.62278 1.36817
diff 132 0.6590909 0.3584397 4.118159 0.0499883 5.980115
mean(diff) = mean(hAsset2 hAsset1) t =1.8338
Ho: mean(diff) = 0 Degrees of freedom =131
Pr(T < t) = 0.9659 Pr(T > t) = 0.0682 Pr(T > t) = 0.0341
Note: hAsset2: Frequency of household assets after project implementation; hAsset1:
frequency of household assets prior to project implementation
of the project in Ethiopia, the establishment of a revolving loan fund enabled

smallholders to purchase inputs necessary for profitable commercial green-bean
production. The vast majority of respondents felt that provision of credit was
adequate. However, when aggregating the results across all four projects, 50per
cent of the surveyed smallholders felt that the issue of lack of credit was not
adequately addressed through project activities.
On the other hand, access to extension services and technology was
considered adequate (Tables 10.6 and 10.7). On aggregate, improved access to
technology was associated with better market integration for 67 per cent of
the survey respondents. The impact of technology adoption can be assessed
by looking at changes in productivity levels. For example, Table 10.8 compares
yields for green beans before and after project implementation in Ethiopia.
It shows that yields were relatively higher following the project, and the
difference between yield levels was statistically significant at the 5 per cent
level. Similarly, in Zambia, milk production per cow increased by more than
100 per cent. About 82 per cent of the respondents attributed this change to
the project (Table 10.9).
Shortcomings in project design and implementation

As discussed in the previous section, returns from the field survey illustrated
the positive effects of the project activities on smallholders market partic-
ipation, particularly with reference to access to private productive assets.
However, the survey results also evidenced the need to focus on three
main areas in the formulation and implementation of market participation
projects.
First, the selection of deserving project beneficiaries has to be undertaken
on the basis of a systematic approach. As shown in Table 10.10, 87.7 percent of
the targeted smallholders considered themselves as middle income, whileonly
Table 10.6 Access to extension services through projects

Ext. support Frequency Percentage Cumulative
Inadequate 30 29.4 29.4
Adequate 48 47.1 76.5
No response 24 23.5 100
Total 102 100
Table 10.7Diffusion of technology through projects

Technology Frequency Percentage Cumulative
Inadequate 8 20.5 20.5
Adequate 22 56.4 77
No response 9 23.1 100
Total 39 100
Table 10.8 Paired t-test on green beans yields, before and after project
a91 69 3.175362 0.3698022 3.071808 2.437434 3.913291

a90 69 0.115942 0.115942 0.9630868 .1154167 0.3473007
diff 69 3.05942 0.3465598 2.878742 2.367871 3.75097
mean(diff) = mean(a91 a92) t = 8.828
Ho: mean(diff) = 0 Degrees of freedom = 68
Pr(T < t) = 1.0000 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000
Note: a90: green bean yields (tonnes/ha) before project; a91: green bean yields (tonnes/ha)
after project
Table 10.9 Percentage changes in milk output per cow (litres), before and after project
Before the project After the project Percentage change
Mean 4.1 8.4 104
Minimum 0.2 1.4 600
Maximum 14 20 42
Table 10.10 Smallholders by wealth distribution (self-reported)

Wealth Frequency Percentage Cumulative
Very poor 3 2.3 2.3
Poor 11 8.5 10.8
Middle income 114 87.7 98.5
Rich 2 1.5 100.00
Total 130 100.00
8.5 per cent and 2.3 per cent considered themselves as poor andvery poor,
respectively. This implies that project activities effectively targeted the better-
endowed smallholders. As noted in the conclusions, this feature of targeting
may or may not be an intentional objective of smallholder market-access
projects.
Table 10.11 illustrates this targeting phenomenon, showing that 112 out
of 128 (87.5 per cent) of smallholders were middle-income households with
an average landholding of 5.3 hectares, which is 208 per cent more than
households classified as poor. Middle-income smallholders also had a higher
level of education (Table 10.12) and reported, on average, having more
household assets prior to the project than poor households.
Second, the field survey revealed weaknesses in the design and imple-
mentation of the marketing component of the projects, which should have
included activities specifically designed to build sustainable value chain
linkages. Participating smallholders generally felt that their skills in marketing
Table 10.11 Smallholders landholding by wealth distribution

Wealth Mean (ha) Std. Dev. Frequency
Very poor 0 0 3
Poor 1.7 2.15 11
Middle income 5.3 11.47 112
Rich 1 1.41 2
Total 4.8 10.83 128
Table 10.12 Smallholders level of education by wealth distribution

Wealth Mean Std. Dev. Frequency
Very poor 3 1.73 3
Poor 2.6 0.51 11
Middle income 4.6 12.71 114
Rich 3 0 2
Total 4.3 11.91 130
Note: Education level 1: None; 2: Primary; 3: Secondary; 4: High school; 5: Diploma; 6:

University
and negotiation needed to be improved, and unsurprisingly that prices

received for their produce could have been higher. Where product markets
were not characterized by a workable level of competition, farmers will have
been disadvantaged. Thus, in the cases of Ethiopia, Peru, and Tanzania, lack
of better prices was associated with limited market outlets; in these projects,
there was only one buyer. The failure to build sustainable supply linkages
was pronounced in Ethiopia. Little attention was paid to capacity building
at the cooperative level and there were no enduring supply chain linkages or
business networks established between producers, cooperatives, and viable
export partners. For some of the smallholders, the short-term benefits of
exporting green beans were outweighed by losses incurred following the
decision by the exporter associated with the project to halt its green-bean
operations, turning a manageable business risk into a major implementation
failure. Clearly, the loss of the export channel meant that none of the direct
benefits generated at the beginning of the project was sustained. Farmers
who invested in specific assets for green-bean production eventually found
themselves with limited or no returns on these new assets, which was a
highly undesirable outcome.
Third, project agreements should have included a detailed breakdown
and an assessment of the counterpart contribution, so that risks were well-
balanced between the stakeholders. One specific example is again the case
of Ethiopia where the required counterpart contribution, which would have
locked in the exporter, was not delivered another major implementation
failure. One of the options in the case of Ethiopia would have been to expand
the commodity portfolio addressed by the project along with setting up
contractual agreements with more than one green-bean exporting company,

as was envisaged in the project design.
Participation of smallholders in commercially oriented production

and market activities
Project activities aimed at improving smallholders market-participation capacity
led to positive outcomes for farmer-beneficiaries and to local communities,
who were indirect beneficiaries. Building market-participation capacity, by, for
example, improving farming skills and private productive assets, is a requirement
for improved market access. The evidence from the four country studies
showed that smallholders access to markets improves following the purchase
of specific private assets and implementation of skills enhancement activities.
In Tanzania, the release of land deeds by the government to the Tanzania Sisal
Board (TSB), for allocation to smallholders to engage in sisal cultivation and
supply the processing mills, was an institutional change as well as asset-building
and ensured smallholder integration into the sisal value chain. Similarly,
for the vegetable export development project in Ethiopia, local authorities
allocated land for the construction of two privately managed pack-houses,
which was a determinant in enhancing smallholders access to markets.
However, sustaining market participation means that consideration must
also be given to increasing the ease of doing agribusiness (World Bank, 2017) by
reducing unnecessary regulations, reinforcing market-related institutions such
as the rule of law, and strengthening infrastructure such as roads, electricity, and
physical marketplaces. These elements have a significant influence on farmers
decisions to participate in markets and in ensuring the success of projects.
They also underpin the key role of governments as a provider of public goods.
The responsibility of the public sector in commodity-specific projects must be
clearly defined with identified roles and expectations. Where the public sector
provides start-up support to projects in terms of financial and human resources
and specific services in the fields of research, infrastructure, extension, and
training and capacity building, an appropriate time frame must be adopted in
order to achieve sustainability.
Institutional support, in relation to the establishment and strengthening
of organizations such as cooperatives and producers organizations, appears
to be a very important component of successful projects, and is another
element that often takes longer than anticipated. In the case of Zambia,
Tanzania, and Peru, farmers pointed out that collective marketing secured
remunerative market outlets for farmers. Smallholders organizations are
more likely to achieve economies of scale in production and purchasing of
inputs, facilitating their integration into commercial farming.
The selection of specific market channels may constrain smallholders
toa particular value chain as the case study in Ethiopia and, to a certain
extent, in Peru showed which tends to shift a significant share of market risk
on to smallholders themselves. The use of formal written contracts between
producers and buyers is likely to reduce transaction-cost risks inherent in such

asset-specific projects.
Capacity development must also encompass training of smallholders
(andextension agents) on such issues as evaluation of market conditions and

outlook, and negotiations on pricing and payment terms. This is an area in
which survey respondents felt that more needed to be done to better equip
them to face the challenges of operating in the market in a sustainable manner.
Such requests were formulated in all four country case studies.
Recommendations for selecting project-participating smallholders

The basis, or process, for selecting project-participating smallholders is
critical and needs to be clearly formulated. The first step is to agree on
a set of criteria that define a smallholder. The definition may vary from
project to project and also within a project itself depending on the country
context. It is also equally important to identify a methodology which
enables the identification and targeting of smallholders. Evidence from
the case studies showed that the selection of smallholder participants was
not sufficiently defined and articulated. Targeting of smallholder farmers
was more successful in Ethiopia, where farmer cooperatives were involved
in identifying and selecting project participants from within their own
membership. InTanzania, where the selection of beneficiaries was on a
voluntary basis, there were project participants who were not necessarily in
need of support. A similar situation was reported in the case of Zambia and
Peru. Clearly, in many instances, targeting is fraught with ethical issues that
are not frequently discussed openly. Targeting involves explicit biases. Many
projects, in effect, target their interventions at the producers most likely to
respond, which creates a productivity bias. Often, targeting is based on a
minimum or threshold concept of asset endowments that project partici-
pants must meet:
level of human capital, e.g. education;

financial capital, e.g. loan collateral;
physical and natural assets, e.g. minimum scale of production;
social capital, e.g. cooperative membership, geographical proximity to
markets, gender;
psychological capital, e.g. perceived propensity towards market orientation
and innovation.
Such an approach is likely to generate the best economic returns to the

intervention. A consequence is that the most marginal and poorest rural
people are likely to be excluded. However, they may benefit through second-
round effects, such as the demand for labour, as was the case in Ethiopia with
the establishment of the pack-houses.
The threshold concept implies the exclusion of the poorest smallholders
within a community, or region, and is likely to give rise to increasing inequality.
Where specific localities are targeted, increasing inequality between regions is

also a likely consequence. Adopting a productivity bias is therefore an effective
approach for boosting the local agricultural economy but not an approach
conducive to reducing poverty among the poorest.

An alternative method is to target the poorest, as is the case in microfi-
nance projects. This is a poverty bias, based on common methodologies such
as wealth ranking and more-or-less readily available household-income data
or per-capita conceptions of wealth/poverty. The capacity of the poorest
peopleto respond to opportunities may indeed be constrained and give
lower returns to interventions. However, even small impacts on poverty may
result in significant benefits to participants. Other potential and combined
approaches involve targeting women, single-headed households, younger
people, or collective organizations. The targeted population is, therefore,
a choice variable. The decisions and the consequences should be clearly
articulated. Project design must involve explicit discussion and negotiation
between donors and host-government bodies, implementing agencies and
potential beneficiary populations.
Project design must ensure that the objectives of the intervention are
consistent with the targeting, and the objectives should preferably be
limited in number and scope. Thinking in terms of livelihood assets and
outcomes is a helpful way of ensuring that objectives, targeting, types of
intervention, and expected outcomes are coherent. Thus, investment in
human, social, financial, and physical assets (and maybe natural assets by
way of land tenure measures and reforms, and investments in ecological
sustainability) are proximate objectives for economic development and
poverty reduction.
Commitment of stakeholders to fulfil their obligations under the project

Working through existing institutional structures, such as extension services
and cooperative unions with which farmers are already familiar, is important
in securing beneficiaries buy-in to the project. This strategy was particularly
successful in Ethiopia and Zambia. In Ethiopia, the project worked through
the existing extension services and farmer cooperatives. In Zambia, the project
built on earlier initiatives for smallholder farmers: the dairy cooperatives
and the milk-collection centres. Hence the local institutional and organiza-
tional context is important. Stakeholder mapping and analysis is a necessary
part of the project-design process in order to, identify and make explicit the
conflicting, competitive, and cooperative interrelationships.
There is also a need for strong support and commitment by stakeholders to
fulfil their obligations under the project. Contractual responsibilities should
be clearly negotiated and specified. Where required, counterpart contributions
must be quantified and fair. The case study from Ethiopia demonstrates that
contractual commitments by stakeholders must be given the utmost attention
to ensure that project results extend beyond the life of the project.
Capacity development
Participatory approaches and training are necessary to increase smallholder
productive capacity and these were successfully implemented in the Zambia

and Ethiopia projects. At the institutional level, there is a need to enhance
the capacity of national implementing institutions. In Ethiopia, there was no
capacity development at the cooperative level or sustainable chain linkages
between producers, cooperatives, and export partners. In Tanzania, there was
no provision made for the development of commercial-scale distribution of
improved sisal planting material.
Where smallholder farmers are developing associations, it is essential to
provide training to the associations, particularly in price formation, negotiation,
financial management, and other business skills, to help them better fulfil their
roles. Returns from investments in organizational capacity building, as well as
human and social capital, may appear relatively small but, in the long-run,
greater benefits and sustainability can be expected.
It is important to recognize the need for public and private-sector partner-
ships. The involvement of governments, the private sector, and donors
contributes to the effectiveness of project implementation and reinforces project
delivery. The involvement of the public sector ensures continuity, and the
scaling up of successful projects. It also provides the private sector and donors
with greater assurances of continuity, which in turn strengthens commitment.
Conclusions
As noted at the end of Chapter 1, this book addresses two sets of issues:
based on literature and field experiences it promised to indicate the strengths
and weaknesses of interventions and initiatives formulated to improve
smallholder market access; and evaluate improving market access as an
approach which contributes to bigger development goals. The purpose of the
empirical Chapters 69 in Part 2 was to present evidence and draw lessons
from the determinants of successes and failures of selected CFC/FAO projects
in assisting smallholder farmers to participate (and/or participate on more
favourable terms) in agricultural markets/value chains.
The results summarized here are consistent with the evidence from the
literature on the importance of stimulating the market-participation capacity
of smallholders. Without an enabling environment that enhances their
natural, human, social, physical, and financial assets, smallholders do not
have the appropriate incentives or opportunities to participate in markets.
The results of the field surveys conducted in the four countries showed that
project activities targeting the five market-participation capacity indicators
described in the methodology section, did contribute to strengthening market
access and linkages.
On the basis of the four country case studies, and using both qualitative
andquantitative methods, a series of lessons and best practices in designing
and implementing commodity development projects have been identified.

First, survey data revealed that projects mostly targeted better-off smallholders,
those with relatively better access to productive assets and suitable agroeco-
logical conditions. Only a few poor and very poor smallholders were selected as
participants in the projects. This bias towards the better-endowed smallholders
generates the best economic returns to the intervention, but it implies that the
most marginal and poorest rural people were likely to be excluded as benefi-
ciaries although some benefits may have accrued to them through second-
order effects, mostly in terms of increased opportunities in local labour markets.
Smallholders are a heterogeneous group facing different types of constraints to
market access and, as such, the initial objective of a commodity-development
project should be to articulate clearly the nature of those constraints relevant
to each category of smallholders, so that project execution is well-focused and
likely to benefit the intended beneficiaries.
The analysis of the field survey data suggested that project activities
addressing all five market participation capacity indicators contributed to
strengthening market linkages. Further, improvements in smallholder market
participation were associated with project activities that focused on extension,
training and demonstrations, and support in building up productive agricul-
tural assets. Gains in market participation were also correlated with the initial
condition related to household and farm characteristics such as wealth, land
size, asset ownership, and a favourable agroecological environment. Access to
credit was found to significantly influence access to markets, highlighting the
positive role of credit-support activities which constituted, in several instances,
a core component of CFC/FAO projects. Favourable institutional and market
environments were also factors predisposing towards project success.
The study surveys showed that technology adoption had a significant
impact on smallholders. Yields per hectare were improved significantly in
the case of projects involving crop activities (Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Peru),
while milk yield per cow was increased twofold on average in Zambia.
Project-specific activities were a factor behind the increases in produc-
tivity. These involved providing training to smallholders on good crop and
livestock production practices, and provision of planting materials, market
information, and subsidized fertilizers. In the case of Ethiopia, the project
instituted a revolving loan fund to be used by the smallholders cooperative
for the purchase of inputs. As a result, smallholders managed to success-
fully grow and export green beans, at least for the lifetime of the project.
Inthe case of the jatropha project in Peru, farmers learned new production
techniques, including pruning, use of organic manure, bioinsecticide
use, and utilization of bees to pollinate crops. Increases in earnings from
commercial farming triggered additional incentives to generate production
surpluses, notably during the initial years following the implementation of
project activities.
Given the existing bias in the selection of participating smallholders,
project activities and policy recommendations need to be specific to the
targeted group. For better-off smallholders, priority should be given to areas

addressing standards, quality, and export markets. In other words, policy
interventions need to put the emphasis on marketing issues, which, from the
survey data, appeared to be one of the main barriers to expanding market

access. Note that government policies on prices and trade are most likely to
have the largest impact on this sub-group of smallholders, given that most
of them already participate, to varying degrees, in local, national, and to a
certain extent, international markets.
For the poorest smallholders, priority should be given to activities that
build up private productive assets and ensure the preservation of natural
capital, so that poorly endowed smallholders are able to accumulate the assets
necessary to sustain a commercially oriented farming strategy. Where access,
and titling, to fundamental assets such as land and water can be improved,
the potential increases in scale can provide a better platform for the less well-
endowed smallholders. This can be the foundation for development through
transfer of technology, skills in farm management practices (including
sustainable land management practices), and access to credit and financial
services. For the latter, the creation of a credit-revolving fund with farmers
organizations can assist smallholder farmers to integrate with input markets
on a sustainable basis, as illustrated by the case study for Ethiopia. The four
case studies showed there were considerable gains in social-asset building and
networking as smallholders organized themselves into cooperative groups,
associations, and unions.
The provision of reliable, affordable, and easy-to-access market and trade
information is essential to sustain integration in both input andoutput
markets. However, often more emphasis is attached to agronomic and
production aspects. There is a pressing need to integrate marketing analyses
into project activities at the initial stages of implementation so that small-
holders, both women and men, are able to gain an understanding of business,
and access and use market information including market analysis of current
crop situation and outlook. A related issue is the ability of smallholders
to assess and manage risks in the face of fragile ecosystems and volatile
markets. Excessive risk discourages farmers from adopting new technol-
ogies and practices. The case studies evidenced a lack of consideration for
risk management issues, including crop and market-outlet diversification,
crop insurance schemes, financial inclusion, and development of on-farm
genetic diversity. Systemic risk must be reduced through public investments
into infrastructure, improving governance ofagricultural markets as
well asnatural resources. Hence the importance of involving the public
sector inthe development of risk management outputs for commodity-
development projects.
A key factor ensuring the success of a project is whether gains can be
sustained beyond the lifetime of the project. There are two main lessons
concerning sustainability that can be drawn from the case studies. First, gains
are most likely to be sustained when project beneficiaries rely on more than
a single commodity and/or a single market outlet. In the case of Ethiopia,

there were major design and implementation failures when the participating
exporting company halted its green-bean exporting operation, leaving small-
holders with no export channel at the termination of the project. Similarly, in

Peru, reliance on a single buyer rendered project beneficiaries, especially those
without complementary activities, vulnerable to market shocks and power
imbalances.
Second, special attention should be devoted to situations where a partici-
pating private firm holds monopoly or monopsony power since it may
leave smallholders in a vulnerable or unsustainable position, as in the cases
of Ethiopia and Peru. It is suggested that project appraisals should contain
fully elaborated details on commitments made by value chain partners to
enable each party to fulfil their obligations under the project, and beyond,
with proposed contingency options in case of shocks. Sustainability of market
access depends not only on the ability of smallholders to access input and
output markets, but also on how these markets operate in the long term.
References
Amrouk, El M., Poole, N.D., Mudungwe, N. and Muzvondiwa, E. (2013).
in Developing Countries: Case Studies of FAO/CFC Projects. Rome, United
World Bank (2017). Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017. Washington, DC,
World Bank.
CHAPTER 11
Postscript: Going local

with development policies
There is a huge potential for smallholder agriculture to make a major contribution
to overcoming the sustainable development challenges of the 21st century. Feedinga
growing population through increasing smallholder participation in markets is
one such contribution. For reasons of efficiency and best returns on investment
in development interventions, policymakers and practitioners must learn from
successful examples in order to upscale the impacts of best development practice.
Projects and programmes designed by public and other development organizations
are not sufficient to meet the global challenges. It is essential to shape the institu
tional environment so that the autonomous initiatives of entrepreneurial households
and firms can overcome entry barriers and respond to market incentives. The respon
sibility for shaping the institutional environment and policies tends to be located
in the political centres of developing countries. Nevertheless, the centres often lack
the detailed understanding of local people, contexts, and territories required to design
and implement development programmes and projects. Alongside good communi
cations between the respective levels, downscaling decision making and responsi
bilities to provincial, regional, and district levels is necessary to address the challenges
of the 21st century, and has important implications for governance, knowledge
management, and capacity building.
Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals, governance, market partici-

pation, policy, knowledge, upscaling, downscaling, local, territorial,
subsidiarity
Feeding the world

We began this book on market participation by arguing how significant the
global smallholder agriculture sector is in terms of the number of people
involved, and how farming is a way of life as well as a source of livelihoods
for millions of poor people. In the opening chapter we stated the obvious,
which is that the primary agricultural sector is the source of foodstuffs for
the global population. We note here that the sectors contribution includes
supplies of agricultural crops and livestock products to non-food markets such
as fibres. It is food that grabs the attention. The demand for food is increasing
in proportion with the growing population: about 7.5 billion people now,
and possibly over 11 billion by 2100, with the greatest proportionate regional
increase happening in Africa. The principal points of this book are to signal
both the challenges and the potential for including smallholders in these
http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780449401.011
agricultural markets, thereby meeting their development needs and, at the

same time, making a much-needed contribution to sustainable food supplies
and wider development objectives.
We highlighted the significance of heterogeneity in brief, that not all

smallholders may be willing or able to take advantages of opportunities for
improved market access to become commercial farmers. Regarding inherent
characteristics or attributes, many smallholders lack the necessary livelihood
assets to commercialize, and, for some, there is a personal disinclination
to farm commercially in favour of seeking other forms of livelihood and
employment. There are the genuine barriers of remoteness, the small scale of
enterprises, high business transaction costs and risks, inadequate services and
technologies, andorganizational failure, which are among the external and
contextual factors which limit smallholder market participation. In Chapter 2
we emphasized the significance of individual and household behaviour in
relation to markets, and particularly how farmers make decisions not only about
production costs, but also the transaction-costs associated with agribusiness.
But we have also noted that many small-scale farmers are already linked into
markets for inputs, products, and services as suppliers and as consumers
on their own initiative, without outside intervention. Again in Chapter 2,
we identified trends in policy approaches to stimulating market participation
that have led to the prevailing value chain paradigm. From the literature and
from the case studies in Part 2, we have seen that, where entrepreneurial potential
is frustrated by surmountable barriers, the difficulties of which we have a good
theoretical understanding, well-designed external interventions can facilitate
viable linkages to agri-food value chains. Such projects tend to be costly, and
the beneficiaries few, so there is always a desire to multiply impact through
efforts to upscale and replicate, by applying the lessons learned to a much wider
population and therefore getting a better return on the project investment.
Such multiplication processes areimportant, but costly projects and external
interventions cannot match the potential opportunities. Individual households
and businesses in existing market systems must be encouraged and shaped
within the context of improving local agroecological and human situations,
commercial opportunities, and local institutional environments.
It is under these circumstances that appropriate support and services should
be delivered to the wider population. Chapters 3 and 4 built on Chapters 1 and
2 by exploring in depth the fundamental importance of providing financial
services and risk management for smallholders who wish to exploit market
opportunities. We stressed the need for diagnosis of the business challenges
and for the design of comprehensive services to enable farmers to overcome
the market-access barriers, with a significant role for the public sector, and,
optimally, in relationship with private-sector provision of finance, marketing
and business skills, and human-capital formation. The cases in Part2,
Chapters 510, illustrated project-design and implementation issues and how
thesechallenges were addressed to a greater or lesser extent.
In this postscript, we draw together a number of threads to consider
how market access fits into the big picture of development. We begin with
GOING LOCAL WITH DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 185
overview comments on the macro, global scale of agricultural development,

and end with more precise local recommendations. There may appear to be
acontradiction with the conclusions of Chapter 10 which imply the potential
of lessons for upscaling good practice, but this argument comes with a
warning. It constitutes a plea or pronouncement, or even a provocation as
a corrective to the conclusion that market-access experiences can necessarily
be replicated and upscaled into policy. It is a framework for action, or a
manifesto, to scale down policymaking from the macro to the micro, meaning
that policymaking should be downscaled to the local level, building on local
knowledge and understanding of specific people and contexts. Actually, itis
not a question of either upscaling or downscaling, but of rebalancing the
onus of responsibility for development policy, programmes, and projects
towards the local context and away from the central axes of development
decision making.
A macro perspective
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide the current framework
forunderstanding and formulating strategies. But strategies are only the
basisfor policies which then have to be operationalized through programmes,
projects, and local processes. As we move from the outer ring of Figure 1.1,
embracing the macro issues of development, towards the inner ring, which
includes the livelihoods of poor agricultural smallholders who are our focus, in
a geographical sense we downscale from the global to continental, tonational,
to regional, to district, to local micro issues.
Food quantity
There are huge challenges in feeding the world. While innovative food sources
such as insects, bacteria, and seaweed, among others, will be developed and
may become acceptable to consumers over the 21st century, there is still a
need to increase areas of production, increase productivity, and change food
sources and diets. There are limited areas for the expansion of food production,
but those there are lie largely in developing regions. Thedata reviewed in
Chapter 1 illustrated the productivity gap between advanced-country agricul-
tural systems and these developing regions, offering considerable opportunity
for increasing food supplies.
Many developing regions are characterized by fragile ecosystems:
poorersoils than the productive temperate regions, extreme temperature
regimes, and suboptimal rainfall patterns. Meteorological extremes are
already increasing; this is likely a consequence of climate change and, so
far, international agreements have not been effective in halting the rate of
global warming. While there isneed for large-scale investments to exploit
the constrained potential of theserelatively unproductive lands, they
are precisely where smallholder agriculture also is an important mode of
production.
As populations move in response to changing lifestyle preferences and

livelihood opportunities, poor populations will be found more often in
urban areas than rural areas, increasing the demand for infrastructure and
the market functions of storage, transport, and processing. Relatively high

levels of male migration, and perhaps increasing whole household shifts,
will mean fewer human resources for the rural economy. Targeting agricul-
tural development programmes towards women will become even more
important. There will be an increasing requirement for a shift from labour-
intensive production to systems that make more use of capital at the same
time reducing the drudgery that often is a disincentive for young people to
commit to agriculture.
Sustainability
The Sustainable Development Goals, concerning the many issues challenging
all nations, have attracted the attention of the global community. Among
other things, agriculture and downstream sectors make a large direct contri-
butionto the problems as well as potential solutions, not least to global
warming through direct and indirect greenhouse-gas emissions. For agriculture
and rural activities in general, sustainability implies proper management of
the natural resources base: water, soils, biodiversity, pastures, woodland and
forests, and air. Increasing utilization of more sophisticated technologies must
be consistent with indeed, supportive of sustainable intensification.
For development practitioners, difficult questions surround these challenges:
how much will these changed practices happen autonomously, guided by the
invisible hand of markets? How much will they require a policy response from
governments and supranational organizations to address market failures?
How much collective will to make an effective policy response is there in
the international community? We will see by 2030 whether the SDGs have
been the right ones and how successfully policies have been operationalized.
It will become evident how much progress has been achieved in orienting
agriculture towards the quality and quantity of food delivered to consumers
that will be needed to meet the 2030 Goals.
A sectoral perspective
Health and food quality
Market participation is not an end in itself, but for most smallholders
is a means towards the end of earning a living and overcoming poverty
challenges. We noted above the importance of production which sustains
the natural environment. Besides this stewardship function, agriculture
can directly address major health challenges. Agriculture can make a direct
contribution towards reducing the undernutrition that causes costly and
distressing human, social, and economic underdevelopment. Agricultures
contribution as an input to the local and global food industries is also linked
to the manufacture and distribution of cheap foodstuffs, and eventually to

the poor quality of diets that cause the other half of the double burden of
malnutrition overnutrition.
The global food system is a major driver of the demand for specific crops and
livestock products, the overconsumption of which is implicated in the rise in
non-communicable diseases attributed to processed meats and dairy products,
sugar, and palm oil among other foodstuffs. This suggests that smallholder
agriculture should be not only efficient and profitable but also sensitive
to consumers nutritional requirements, particularly in respect of micro-
nutrients. There are theoretical reasons, and plenty of evidence, to expect
smallholders to be able, efficiently and sustainably, to supply value chains
for high-nutrient quality foods such as fruits and vegetables. Smallholders
can exploit potential competitive advantages in supplying local marketswith
foods of high nutrient quality, whose consumption in many developing
regions needs to rise to meet nutritional quality objectives.
Economic multiplier effects

We have commented that the value chain concept is central to contemporary
agri-food policy interventions by international and governmental organiza-
tions, and many development NGOs. The attraction is the whole-chain focus
which can encompass the complex range of activities necessary to bring primary
products to market, and the vision for creating economic opportunities before
and beyond primary production. These include involving small- and medium-
scale enterprises (SMEs) in the marketing of input supplies, plus employment in
thetransportation of primary products, processing, manufacturing, distribution,
and retail. SMEs beget SMEs as incomes are recycled to supply the demand for a
wider range of goods and services, and so the local economy grows.
Again, the theory and evidence we have presented in earlier chapters show
that the more entrepreneurial members of the rural community, including
smallholder farmers, can overcome the market-entry barriers and integrate
upstream and downstream functions as new economic activities. New skills
are learned, incomes are raised from exploiting potential economies of scope
from a diversified livelihood portfolio, and risk can be identified, managed,
and reduced. Conventional small-scale agriculture has a declining attraction
for young people, and consequently farming globally is characterized by an
ageing population of farmers. But young people can be attracted into sectors
that are made of more technically challenging, capital-intensive enterprises that
effectively balance risk andreward.
Infrastructure and more

The growth of commercialization among smallholder farmers, as in any other
economic activity, depends on infrastructure and logistics: provision of water
relies on physical capital investment; manufacturing and distribution rely on
power and roads and bridges; market supply and demand for all sorts of goods
and services depend on timely and accurate information using hard telecom-
munications and soft knowledge. The growing body of evidence that access
to markets is a driver of better nutrition even in rural areas is an illustration

of how health and well-being are linked to the economics of the market and
not just household food production. Investment in education and training
or, in a broader sense, human-capacity building, underpins much of human
progress. Twenty-first century information technologies can make knowledge
and access simpler, delivering them more equitably and more efficiently than
at any other time in history. Again, to argue this is not novel, but more a
rediscovery of the complex and comprehensive characteristics of the interven-
tions necessary to tackle development problems.
Policy interventions and tensions of scale: going micro

We have noted that the people and households at the centre of Figure 1.1
are heterogeneous in terms of their assets and inclinations. The natural
contexts are also heterogeneous and often cross borders which do not respect
agroecological resources such as soils and water basins, nor environmental,
social and political entities such as markets, ethnicity, conflict, migration,
zoonoses, antibiotic resistance, and pandemics. The point is that development
challenges, including improving market access and participation, are not
confined within political limits: the scale is trans-territorial, and not a
function of the nation-state. There are other trans-territorial phenomena
that can contribute to development of trade and food systems, transfers
of knowledge and information. Distinguishing the implications of trans-
territorial transfers and barriers needs skill and understanding of context.
The implication is that governance of the SDGs should not be taken to be
equivalent to the governance of the nation-state by national policymakers,
but needs to be framed within a context of trans-national territoriality.
Second, there is a tension between the scales of thinking which frame the
macro strategies and the design of policies, programmes, and projects in
our case, of market participation at a micro level. The features of diversity
and locality must impel development policymakers and practitioners to be
responsive to context, as highlighted in the literature and in the comments
on the case studies in Part 2. This much is often noted in thinking, but less
often respected in the doing. Even the cases reviewed earlier demonstrate that
successful market participation can be achieved where there is understanding
of the human, social, political, and economic context. The failures in project
design and implementation can be attributed, at least in part, to lack of that
same understanding.
Again, this is not a new finding, but is perennial and persistent. Do central
policymakers have too much influence over designs for local contexts, and do
remote donors who operate at the macro level prescribe too much the interven-
tions that take place at the local level? After decades of post-colonial development
and aspirations towards participatory development design and management,

are the projects still being designed and authorized at the wrong level?
Exploring these ideas in a specific context may help emphasize the
argument. Recent policy-oriented work in agriculture and nutrition in

Afghanistan, to which we referred in Chapter 1, identified significant gaps
between stakeholders concerning actual policies, programme design, and
project implementation (Poole et al., 2016). Most importantly, doubts were
expressed by provincial stakeholders about the level and validity of knowledge
of the people at the centre. Development practitioners and some public-
sector officials considered that people from the centre that is, the decision
makers largely based in the capital, Kabul, and many foreign experts were
ill-informed about the provincial realities. Interviewees suggested that policies
were misguided, and that knowledge exchange between the different levels
ofdecision making and implementation was deficient.
Not all countries are as heterogeneous as Afghanistan, which is an extreme
challenge for development work. Afghanistan has a very wide diversity of
ecological regions and of ethnicities, traditions, and patterns of livelihoods.
There is extreme remoteness and there are major physical barriers to efficient
logistics and the exchange of knowledge and information. The delivery of
public services for health, education, and training in this complex natural
and social environment is arduous. Natural resources (besides the mineral
wealth) are limited. Parts of the country are prone to natural disasters such as
avalanches, landslides, and earthquakes. The climate is already changing and
the incidence of adverse effects is likely to be severe. Above all, the ongoing
conflict exacerbates the impacts of all the difficulties, and contributes directly
to the provincialcentral gap.
The specific weaknesses identified in the Afghanistan policy environment
are not unique or new (Poole et al., 2016: 868):
little integration of development policies across sectors such as emergency

relief and longer-term development, agriculture and nutrition, education,
markets, infrastructure and knowledge management, and gender;
policies reported to be often ill-designed through top-down processes,
in part driven by ill-informed international organizations and experts;
imperfect coordination activities among myriad policy-formulating
bodies, funding and implementation partners caused many
inconsistencies;
lack of capacity and resources within government ministries and
departments along with poor infrastructure.
In addition, Afghanistan is racked by huge security concerns which remain

major barriers to progress. These may not be typical of developing regions,
butthe proportion of poor countries that suffer conflict is not coincidental.
The lessons are likely to have a wide application in fragile regions.
Detailed knowledge of smallholders and markets is a local phenomenon.
In the case of Afghanistan, and other developing economies which have
appeared throughout earlier chapters, a subnational governance architecture

can offer a structure that could allow the decentralization of development
responsibilities to the regions and provinces, to local policymakers and
practitioners who know the localities better than national policymakers and
international donors and experts based in the capital. Decentralizing respon-
sibilities does not only require a governance structure but is also conditional
upon having the appropriate human capacity at the regional, provincial, and
district levels. While insecurity persists, staffing remote areas is problematic.
In Afghanistan, peace-building is an absolute necessity but, given greater
security and stability, downscaling development responsibilities to the local
context is an approach that could respond to the plea made in this postscript.
Coordination betweenprovinces also offers an approach to the territorial
nature of the development context.
Transnational territorial approaches to apparently intractable local
development challenges may seem idealistic and improbable, but other
approaches have failed to make an impact. However, there is a governance
principle of subsidiarity to which we can appeal for support: adopting
theprinciple of subsidiarity enables decision making and intervention to
be undertaken at a level as close as possible to the citizen or stakeholder,
i.e.as little centralized as can be made to work competently.
The approach proposed here suggests the following three methods to
downscale actions for market development and other broader responsibilities,
which may find echoes in other contexts:
1. Governance. Greater decentralization of policymaking to provincial

levels. Devolution requires that the scale of operations strikes a balance
between the availability of technical expertise and local capacity.
Provincial/regional-level governance should result in policies that are
likely to be context-specific and appropriate.
2. Knowledge management. Improved information flows of local knowledge
between central, provincial, and local government structures. Increased
use of local governance both line ministries and the governors
offices and effective use of IT are mechanisms to bridge the current
poor lines of communication and information flow between central
and provincial/regional levels.
3. Investment in local government. It is essential to build capacity and
overcome the brain-drain from the regions, as individuals with
capacity tend to be recruited to work under more attractive employment
conditions with central government, (I)NGOs, and UN agencies.
Human capacity must be built at decentralized levels to increase local
competence.
The final question is where to start downscaling? By all means, let national
governments re-envision policy processes by adopting decentralized and
territorial approaches to development. But a significant first move is needed
by policy and decision makers, and researchers within the architecture
of international development organizations, to engage directly with the

individuals and households who are at the centre of sustainable development,
and thereby gain a comprehensive and contextualized understanding of local
realities at first hand.
Reference
Poole, N., Echavez, C. and Rowland, D. (2016). Stakeholder Perceptions of
Agriculture and Nutrition Policies and Practice: Evidence from Afghanistan.
LANSA Working Paper Number 9. Chennai, India, Leveraging Agriculture for
Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA), MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.
Retrieved 24 May 2017, from http://ims.ids.ac.uk/sites/ims.ids.ac.uk/
files/documents/Mapping%20stakeholder%20perceptions%20%20
Afghanistan%20on%20template_0.pdf.
Index
Page numbers in italics refer to boxes and tables.
Afghanistan: policy stakeholders research collective and individual decision making

910, 18990 models 43
Africa Progress Panel 14 collective organization 41, 74, 109
agribusiness 54 commercialization 1625
agricultural development commodity development projects
challenges in fostering entrepreneurship cases 11821 (see also specific case studies
1215 by country)
commercialization 1625 conclusions 17881
and poverty reduction, contributions and lessons learned 1267, 16678
limitations 812, 257 recapitulating theory of change: expected
terminology 279 relationships 1656
All African Caribbean Pacific Agricultural recommendations for selecting project-
Commodities Programme (AAACP) participating smallholders 1767
72, 76, 83 research approach and framework 1214
Amrouk, E.M. et al. 17, 20, 118 research methodology and study
Angelucci, F. limitations 1246
and Conforti, P. 72, 73 shortcomings in project design and
et al. 14 implementation 1725
Arias, P. et al. 5, 6, 1617, 21, 22 Common Fund for Commodities (CFC)/
assets see livelihoods/asset-based approach FAO-project case studies 11821
Commons, J.R. 456
Bangladesh: rice trade 656 competitive strategies 54
bargaining models 43 contracts
Barrett, C.B. 212, 36, 40, 42, 44, 45, 478 hedging price variation 912
behaviour role of 935
embeddedness and business systems 59 convertibility of assets 52
household 423, 184 coordination
information challenges in financial service Afghanistan 189, 190
provision 689 horizontal and vertical 58
marketing 47, 90, 91, 95 market economies 37
Rational Economic Man 46 and risk management 901, 92, 93, 95
risk management 96 state and private enterprises 139
biofuel production see Peru: oilseed value chains 534, 108
production for biofuel coping strategies in risk management 88, 93
Borzoni, M. and Poole, N.D. 106 credit
business systems 59 access to 1656, 168, 169, 1712, 179, 180
lack of access to (case studies) 153, 154,
capacity development 178 15960
centralization and decentralization 1901 and risk management 88, 89, 93, 101, 105
cheating: cartel-like marketing agreements see also financial services
90, 91 Crow, B. 656
children 42, 43, 52 cultural capital 50
ChimpReports 245 erosion of 52
climate change 14, 72, 96, 98, 185
Coase, R.H. 46, 47, 48, 534 dairy see Zambia: strengthening productivity
Coles, C. and competitiveness of smallholder
et al. 58 dairying
and Mitchell, J. 57 decentralization 1901
194 SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURE AND MARKET PARTICIPATION
decision making Ethiopia: teff cultivation and marketing 19

production, storage, and marketing 8991 exports 16, 30, 45, 56, 92
see also households Ethiopia: teff cultivation and
Department for International Development marketing 19

(DFID), UK 38 Madagascar: French beans 109
development goals see Millennium restrictions 91
Development Goals (MDGs); Sudan 11920
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) see also Ethiopia: diversification
development policies programme for vegetable export
feeding the world 1835 development; entries beginning
macro perspective 1856 international
market systems to value chains 3542 external environment 12, 25, 44, 48, 53,
micro perspective 18891 55, 59
sectoral perspective 1868 Tanzania (case study) 149, 1556
distress sales 89
donors 35, 60, 67, 100 Fafchamps, M. and Minten, B. 934
ideologies and policies 37 Famine Early Warning System Network
Donovan, J. (FEW NET) 96
et al. 146 financial assets 50, 123, 167
and Poole, N.D. 45, 51, 75, 107 financial services
and Stoian, D. 49, 51 challenges for rural enterprises 712
downscaling 183, 185, 1901 complementary and supporting services
757
economic decision making 42, 434 information challenges 6871
economic multiplier effects 187 innovations for farming 737
efficiency 17, 25, 183, 187, 188 and level of market sales 22
case studies 136, 162 newer services 67, 68
collective organization 41 risk in agriculture and rural economy
cooperatives 59 723
failure of market liberalization 36 role of 657
financial services 756 supply 735
process upgrading 20 and timing of marketing decisions 89
risk management 85, 93, 111 and transaction costs 6873
transaction cost economics (TCE) 47 see also credit
unitary model 42 flowers for international markets 1089
value chains 54, 56 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
employment potential of agriculture 14 5, 14, 29
Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG), UK 75 and CFC-project case studies 11821
entitlement relations 489 food production
entrepreneurship, challenges in fostering and population growth 4, 56, 1834
1215 and productivity 6, 7
equity, leveraging 75 food quality 1867
erosion of assets 52 food quantity 1856
Ethiopia: diversification programme food security 4, 5, 9, 1213, 14, 16, 18, 245,
for vegetable export development 27, 30
11920, 12937, 167, 170, 1745, financial services 66
178, 17980, 181 risk management 104, 105
access to land 131 role of governments 111
changes in agricultural assets 1312 Zambia 157
conclusions 1367 food sovereignty approach 18
costs of quality 134 forward contracts/forward sales 92, 93
downstream activities 1334 frameworks
financial assets 133 development goals 89
household asset building 131 ethical 23
project design and implementation institutional 41
12930, 1356 livelihood assets 51
project services 132, 133 research 1214
questionnaire sample 130 role of governments 97, 111
sustainability 134 strategic 38
targeting 135 value chains 536
195
Index
fresh fruits and vegetables market-related 1234

for domestic consumption 1056 of natural capital 52
for international markets 1089 smallholder participation in marketing 18
World Development 56
Garca-Martnez, M. and Poole, N.D. 107 individual and collective decision making
gender see households; women models 43
Ghana 47, 74 inequality and opportunity, market
formal contracts 95 exclusion and inclusion 235
Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF) information
99100, 101 finance services 6871
governance 190 knowledge management 190
government roles and interventions risk management 96, 97
finance 667 infrastructure 1878
insurance 87, 97, 99, 1001 innovation 15, 20
price stabilization 91 financial services/insurance 67, 737, 97,
public-private sector partnerships 745, 1001
767, 87 institutional 401
risk management 957, 111 livestock feeding technologies 121, 158,
staple foods for domestic consumption 1701
1045 as market-related indicator 124
green beans risk management 110
from Madagascar 109 institutions
see also Ethiopia: diversification innovation 401
programme for vegetable export role and transaction costs 457
development insurance
group lending 67 for agricultural development 97101,
Guyer, J.L. 50, 51, 52, 53 978
compulsory crop 74
Haddad, L. et al. 42, 43 government provision 1001
Hardaker, J.B. et al. 72 government regulation and legislation
Harper, M. et al. 37, 118 97, 99
health risk layering 845, 867
and food quality 1867 types 98100
nutrition-related indicators 7, 8 interactions and trade-offs 512
Helmsing, A.H.J. and Vellema, S. 24, 44, 58, international commodity agreements
5960 67, 90
heterogeneity 13, 179, 184, 188 international fresh produce markets 1089
Afghanistan 189 international fresh produce-chains 1024
households 203 International Research Centre, Canada 57
households internationally traded commodities 1067
economic decisions 42, 434 internationally traded speciality
heterogeneity 203 commodities 1078
and livelihoods 4853 interventions
management decisions 434 case studies 12930, 146, 1556, 157, 162
market decisions 445 impact of projects 11718, 122, 1267,
modelling 423 169, 1767, 17880
human assets 49, 123, 167 see also development policies; government
Human Development Report 24 roles and interventions
investment 51
IFAD 15, 50 in local government 190
impacts see commodity
developmentprojects Jaffee, S. 129
index-based insurance 101 et al. 812
and indemnity, differences between 98 Siegel, P. and 82, 83
India 23 Jatropha see Peru: oilseed production
indicators 28 for biofuel
development goals 89
health and nutrition-related 7, 8 Karamojong people, Uganda 245
impact of projects 1659, 1789 Karembu, M. 15
livelihood asset 1223 knowledge management 190
Latin America 23 New Institutional Economics (NIE) 467, 54

livelihoods/asset-based approach 4853, NGOs 56, 60, 67
1223 Nicaragua: linked financial services 75
linked financial services 75 Nigeria: private-sector contractual finance 74

project impacts 167, 1702 (see also specific North, D.C. 48, 71, 92
case studies by country) nutrition and health 67, 8
Lloyds Micro Insurance Centre 99, 100
loan guarantees 745 oilseeds see Peru: oilseed production
local context 25 for biofuel
local development see development policies Old Institutional Economics (OIE) 46
local financial resources 37 Overseas Development Institute, UK 57
local food systems 18
local government, investment in 190 partnerships
local and international/global integration chain-based 5960
16, 24, 48, 60, 89 public-private sector 745, 767, 87
local markets 18, 23, 40, 48, 89 people perspective 1415
local and particular analysis and Peru: oilseed production for biofuel 120,
interventions 21, 40 13947, 167, 170
local producers 17, 92 conclusions 1456
local suppliers 16, 74 demographic details 140
impacts: strengths and weaknesses 1445
Madagascar: French beans from 109 knowledge management and
making markets work for the poor technology 142
(MMW4P/M4P) 3740 productive capacity 1412
Mali: social capital development 74 programme design and implementation
management 13940
decisions 434 project services 141
knowledge 190 public support 143
see also risk management scale of production 141
Marion, B.W. and NC117 Committee 46 sustainability 43
market access physical assets 50, 123, 167
and constraints 6, 20, 21 policy approaches and interventions see
MMW4P/M4P 3740 development policies
market exclusion and inclusion 235 Poole, N.D. 40, 53, 767, 95
market liberalization 36 Borzoni, M. and 106
market monitoring 1819 and de Frece, A. 40, 41
market participation 1620 Donovan, J. and 45, 51, 75, 107
market systems policies 3542 et al. 910, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 36,
market-related indicators 1234 50, 76, 95, 108, 189
marketing population growth
adequacy of (case studies) 133, 153 global 4, 1834
behaviour 47, 90, 91, 95 rural 6
decision making 8991 Porter, M.E. 54, 56
indicators of smallholder participation 18 post-colonial period 35, 656
microfinance 67, 75, 767, 93, 99 poverty reduction
microinsurance 989 and agricultural development,
and traditional insurance, differences contributions and limitations 812,
between 100 257
migration 13 livelihoods approach 4853
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) making markets work for the poor
8, 40 (MMW4P/M4P) 3740
Miller, C. and Jones, L. 73, 756 price variability see risk management
Minten, B. private-sector contractual finance 74
et al. 19, 108, 109 processing
Fafchamps, M. and 934 financial services 74, 76
multi-sectoral problems 912 impact of projects 121, 123, 125, 170
risk management 94, 102, 104, 107
natural assets 49, 123, 167 see also Peru; Tanzania; Zambia
natural shocks 52, 72, 106 production, storage, and marketing
New Home Economics 423 decisions 8991
197
Index
production costs 46, 47, 48, 82, 143, Siegel, P. and Jaffee, S. 82, 83
150, 184 sisal see Tanzania: sisal product and
productivity 1617 marketdevelopment
food 6, 7 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) 7, 73

see also Zambia: strengthening smallholder agriculture, significance of 38
productivity and competitiveness Smith, A. 94
ofsmallholder dairying social assets 50, 123, 167
project/programme design social capital 50
case studies 12930, 1356, 13940, development 74
14950, 157 Spain: formal contracts 95
shortcomings in 1725 The Springfield Centre 38, 39
Provost, C. and Jobson, E. 19 stakeholder commitment 177
public-private objectives 104, 105 staple foods
public-private sector partnerships 745, for domestic consumption 1045
767, 87 markets 445
public-sector see government roles State of Food and Agriculture 2016: Climate
andinterventions Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(FAO) 14
qualitative impact evaluation 1212 subsidiarity principle 190
supply-chain risk management (SCRM) 82
remittances 13, 75 sustainability 523, 186
remoteness 22, 86, 102, 105, 126, 155, 184, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3,
189, 190 23, 401, 185, 186
research and interrelationships 812, 26
Afghanistan: policy stakeholders 910, Swenson, L. 81
18990
approach and framework 1214 tail risk 867, 96
methodology and study limitations 1246 Tanzania: sisal product and market
value chains 55, 567 development 120, 14956, 167,
rice trade, Bangladesh 656 170, 175
risk assessment 83 access to land 152
identifying and mapping risk 834 adequacy of marketing 153
risk layering 847 agricultural assets 1512
risk management 87, 11011 conclusions 1546
coping strategies 88, 93 financial assets 1534
economic risk and types of value chains household assets 151
1019 programme design and implementation
effects of production, storage, and 14950
marketing decisions 8991 project services 1523
and finance 73 questionnaire sample 1501
hedging price variation 912 social assets 154
role of contracts 935 targeting 13, 53
role of governments 957, 111 design of project interventions 126,
see also insurance 1723, 1767, 17980
Rogers, T.S. et al. 16 middle-income farmers 135
Rural Development Report 2016: Fostering women 186
Inclusive Rural Transformation (IFAD) technical services 73, 139, 149
13, 50 terminology 279
rural population territory/territoriality 59, 60
and food production 56 trans-territoriality 188, 190
migration 13 theory of change 1213, 28, 29, 122, 1656
threshold
Sahel region, West Africa concept 1767
households and management decisions minimum 28
434 risk/risk management 47, 68, 109
livelihoods and ecology 12 trans-territoriality 188, 190
self-insurance 85 transaction costs 367, 40
Sen, A. 23, 489 farmers 478
side-selling: cartel-like marketing and finance 6873
agreements 90, 91 role of institutions and 457
Uganda: Karamojong people 245 Wehling, P. and Garthwaite, B. 105

UN Weightman, B. 45
Human Development Report 24 Wiggins, S. and Keats, S. 17, 18, 26
World Food Programme (WFP) 734 Williamson, O.E. 46, 47, 54

see also Food and Agriculture women
Organization (FAO) participation in decision making 43
upgrading 58 smallholders 4, 5
upscaling 24, 40, 589, 60, 178, 183, 185 targeting 186
USAID: Famine Early Warning System World Bank 4, 16, 20, 389, 87, 104, 111
Network (FEW NET) 96 World Development Indicators 56
World Development Report 2007 (WDR)
value addition 54, 55, 102, 144 21, 22
Zambia (case study) 157, 1601, 162 World Food Programme (WFP) 734
value chains 20, 24, 401 world-systems theory 54
approaches and definition 545
concept development 536 young people 1415, 169, 186, 187
contextual factors 11
economic multiplier effects 187 Zambia: strengthening productivity
financing 734, 756 and competitiveness of smallholder
interventions 56 dairying 1201, 15763, 167,
participation: principles and determinants 1701
5860 changes in number of dairy cows 161
research 55, 567 conclusions 1623
supply-chain risk management (SCRM) 82 household and agricultural
upgrading 58 assets 159
see also risk assessment; risk management improvement in market participation
Via Campesina movement 18 1601
vulnerability and risk management 82 productivity measures 161
project context 1579
warehouse receipt systems 104, 105 project design and implementation 157
weather project services 15960
climate change 14, 72, 96, 98, 185 viability of milk collection
effects 106 centres 161
insurance 98 Zanello, G. et al. 47
smallholder agriculture and
sm allholder agri culture and market participation

market participation
Poole provides cogent argument, up to date references and important
guidance for practice.

Ben Bennett, Professor of International Trade and Marketing Economics
at the University of Greenwich
Small-scale agriculture is the main livelihood of the majority of the

worlds rural poor. Smallholder farmers in the global South make a crucial
contribution to food security in their countries. However, they need to be
connected to markets to make a secure contribution to food availability
and see sustained rises to their incomes. Poor farmers face steep barriers
to participation in different types of markets, including a lack of financing,
and the unwillingness of commercial finance organizations to lend to
remote, dispersed, small-scale farming households.
Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation discusses the evolution

of policies for smallholder development, including the role of value
chains, and the linkages that exist with the Sustainable Development
Goals. Newer, innovative financial mechanisms and linked initiatives are
outlined, and their potential to improve the availability of financial services
and reduce market transaction costs. Risk management for agricultural
smallholders is covered, together with the increasing role of insurance as
a mechanism for risk management among smallholders. Empirical data
are used to illustrate the more conceptual work. The last part of the book
provides case studies of selected commodity value chain investments
involving smallholders in Africa (Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe) and
South America (Peru), implemented by FAO. The lessons concern project
design and targeting, product and market analysis, regulatory issues,
sustainability and improved natural resources management.
Nigel Poole
This book should be read by researchers and students of agriculture,
agriculture economics, human and economic geography, and international
development as well as policy makers within government departments
and international development agencies.
Nigel Poole is Professor of International Development, SOAS,

University of London.

Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation Poole Pract Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation Poole Pract Act

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation Poole Pract Act

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://www.developmentbookshelf.com/doi/book/10.3362/9781780449401 - Friday, December 01, 2017 1:35:47 PM - IP Address:98.22.180.

differentiation. In this new work he embraces Sens livelihoods entitlement

Cover design: Andrew Corbett

1. Introducing smallholder agriculture 3

2. Policy approaches and theoretical considerations 35

3. Financial services for agricultural smallholders 65

4. Risk management for agricultural smallholders 81

5. Introduction to Part II: Assessing the impact of commodity

6. A diversification programme for vegetable exports

7. Production and commercialization of oilseeds in Peru 139

8. Sisal product and market development in Tanzania 149

9. Strengthening the productivity and competitiveness

10. Assessing the impact of projects on smallholder participation

11. Postscript: Going local with development policies 183

A macro perspective 185

About the author

Introducing smallholder agriculture

Keywords: smallholder farmers, agricultural development, poverty reduction,

The significance of smallholder agriculture

Smallholder agriculture is one of the principal economic occupations in

account for 60 per cent of global agriculture. Many small-scale producers

Sustainable agricultural development is one of the most powerful

Seen against the backdrop of an increasing world population that is

To achieve this goal, we need to be more productive and efficient in the

More than economics

Agriculture in the Pacific is more than the occupation of the great

Box 1.1 Smallholders and family farmers

by smallholders (working on up to 10 hectares). While 75 per cent of the worlds food

survives of tradition is largely expressed and maintained, and the

Table 1.1 Rural indicators major regions of the world

% of total growth Annual % growth % of GDP

Source: World Bank (2016)

proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). Food production has increased

Smallholder agriculture is characterized by small production volumes

While the economic output of many countries in developing regions is

20042006 = 100 Agricultural value added

Source: World Bank (2016)

Table 1.3Nutrition-related health indicators major regions of the world

children (%) children (%) among adults

Source: FAO (2013: Annex 1)

The contribution of agricultural development to reducing

andsustainability issues (see UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform;

new SDG era.

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Interrelationships between goals

Major barriers remain to leveraging agriculture for nutrition. These are

17. Strengthen global partnership

13. Combat climate 10. Reduce inequality

processes and outcomes. In particular, we find that lack of capacity and

The complexity of wicked inter- or multi-sectoral problems can be

Husbandry Marketing Nutrient composition Non-communicable

Food standards Incomes Infections

Agricultural Manufacturing, Food Health

Soils Labour Assembly and Cooking Development

Training and New product

extension development Seasonality Education

Figure 1.2 The agri-health value chain and contextual factors

Challenges in fostering agricultural entrepreneurship

and tertiary (services) economic sectors. Moreover, social and environmental

Targeting development support