Comment to the World Bank Report 2008 on Agriculture

1. Key messages in World Development Report
1.1 In the aftermath of economic liberation new opportunities emerge for an agriculture-for-development agenda. Through enhanced coordination, reforming the international institutions for agriculture, more financial commitments, progress in setting rules and standards, enhanced leadership and capacity in developing countries, and analysis and advocacy for global action for the benefit of third world interests, the agriculture-for-development agenda can be successful.
1.2 In the specific chapter on governance the perspective of the appropriate selection of policies and their effective implementation is set and the report argues that this will reinforce the political commitment to use agriculture for development.

2. Underlying assumptions
2.1 Stabilization and liberation policies have set the correct macro-development parameters. Global shifts in production and trade, technological and institutional innovation, decentralization and democratization of countries and the proliferation of civil society organizations are the elements that set a new stage. Capturing the benefits of this new situation requires a new engineering of state, market and civil society operations from local up to global level.
2.2 This analysis is congruent with the central message issued in the ‘From Plunder to Economic Democratization’ International Seminar celebrated in Arnhem, Netherlands, 2003. It reads: “...an economic environment with an overvalued exchange rate has crushing effects on production; and such an environment was the prevailing case in the 1980s…Policy reforms after 1980s have dramatically changed the picture. ... In general, no anti-rural bias is found” and “The new economic paradigm beyond interventionism and liberalization is economic democratization. It is based on political democracy, economic freedom and unbiased polices….The free association of workers and farmers allows for the institutionalization of social and economic negotiations on economic policy.” (AgriCord, 2003).
2.3 In the words of the World Development Report: “Responses to the economic crises of the 1980s helped put the macro fundamentals for growth solidly in place. Few countries now have high rates of inflation or large imbalances in their real exchange rates. Progress has been made worldwide with democracy, decentralization, and political stability, including reduced civil strife in Africa. And there have been major gains in the empowerment of civil society, particularly through the proliferation of producer organizations.” (WDR overview.45)
2.4 For governance the stage is set by the current emphasis on democratization, public sector management reforms, controlling corruption and decentralization.

3. The strengths
3.1 The strength is a well argued historical and geographical argumentation which allows readers to follow the argumentation.
3.2 Particularly, and from our perspective very appropriately, the report captures a new reality as far as farmers’ organizations are concerned. In the report there are approximately 200 references to farmers’, producers’ and rural women’s organizations and cooperatives. There is a clear understanding of the importance, functionality and possibilities of these organizations and the variety of organizational forms from local up to global level.
3.3 At the same time, the report underscores the difficulties and weaknesses of farmers’ organizations. In this respect it is useful to emphasize the gap between outsiders’ expectations and farmers’ organizations abilities to fulfil the range of roles and functions that are required from them for implementing the agriculture-for-development agenda. Hence, the need for continued strengthening of their role vis-à-vis their members, the market, state and other social actors. A need that is acknowledged in the report.
3.4 The report rightly stresses the need for and difficulties of land reform.
3.5 The report elaborates on the different pathways out of poverty. Figure 6 (WDR, overview.49) shows that these do not solely depend on the development of agriculture.
3.6 Paragraph 11.21 elaborates correctly on the advantages of ICT in policymaking.

4. The weaknesses
4.1 The International Federation of Agricultural Producers IFAP in its comments on the Draft Report pointed out the multiply opportunities in the text to refer even more to farmers organizations than the report already does; IFAP highlights the need for further strengthening. This is correct and should be taken into consideration in the final version.
4.2 Yet even by doing so, the report will, regretfully, not capture the full developmental implication of the social organization of farmers. The free and open association of producers is the basis of democracy in agrarian countries and therefore as such an engine for development.
4.3 In the report, and especially in the governance chapter, however, producer organizations are seen as just an extra element that is instrumental because it “can also overcome market failures while avoiding government failures. Collective action through producer organizations can enable economies of scale in input supply, extension and marketing, and managing common property resources, such as irrigation systems. Collective action can also increase farmers’ voice in public decision-making and hold service providers accountable” (WDR, 11.14). In this way they put on the same level as NGOs, notwithstanding the obvious difference with the latter for having a constituency to which to be accountable.
4.4 Although the functional analysis in WDR 11.14 is very accurate at a factual level, it misses the development impact that is likely to occur as a consequence of the sole fact that 1.3 billion people get increasingly organized, in particular the farmer entrepreneurs among them, independently of how small their plot may be. The report does not grasp the reality that continued democratisation follows from the proliferation of farmer organizations and their strengthening.
4.5 The report also misses the point that the role and function of farmers’ organizations in policy preparation is something that has to be facilitated. The opinion of the World Bank for participatory policy making is a strong signal, but it is not enough to make it. In the words of the report “It is the citizens of a country and their leaders who reform governance” (par. 11.6). It is paramount to directly support farmers, citizens of agrarian countries, in order to strengthen their organizations so that they can spur the reforms.
4.6 The authors seem to ignore the accumulated experiences - and the contributions to development theory emerging from these experiences - that have been learned in the circles of IFAP. Although the Federation itself (box 6.9) and three agri-agencies related to it (6.85 footnote 101) are mentioned, the report does not appear to have reviewed their experiences. In the report, only the CNCR (Senegal) and FENOCIN (Ecuador) are mentioned as national farmers’ organizations, whereas national bodies of family farmers are the base of IFAP and the partners for AgriCord. Over a hundred of them are working with AgriCord and its agri-agencies with a total member base of 25 million farmers, even when VNFU (Vietnam) and CFA (India) are not counted. These two claim another 130 million members.
4.7 There is more exposure in the report for the regional (supranational) bodies, like ROPPA and EAFF. These are receiving increasing attention since IFAD acknowledged the importance of farmers’ organizations. However, reference to more national federations and unions of farmers in many developing countries could substantially improve the argument. The increase in provincial and local associations, as reported for Burkina Faso and Ecuador and their federation into national bodies, is a far more general trend.
4.8 Communication and banking technology will shortly enable direct support to farmers’ organizations on all levels, improving at the same time the functional and service relations among the different organizational layers.
4.9 The report could have differentiated even more between farmer employment creators and that part of the rural population that relies now on agriculture because of the lack of better employment opportunities; i.e. employment takers that will benefit from new industries and services that will emerge in a market-oriented agriculture. The employment-creating farmers do not confine themselves to farming, but establish ventures for processing, trade and services like banking, insurance, training or information gathering. Having said this, the report should have stressed less the differences between large and small landholders and focussed more on ‘concertation’ within the farming sector and with other sectors of society.
4.10 Whereas Chapter 10 (par. 10.80) announces that capacity building is a central element to assure governance and private capacities for agricultural development, which will be elaborated in Chapter 11, this is not really done on that point. There are some new competences mentioned for the public sector (p.11.6), but reference to wider capacity building efforts for all key actors, including producers, is not elaborated upon.
4.11 The part on decentralisation (par 11.14 - 11.19) mainly illustrates that decentralisation processes have taken place in the majority of countries under review and the Chapter provides examples. It should go further and elaborate on the need for stronger feedback mechanism from local to national (and global, as mentioned in the title of the Chapter) levels, on results of policies and the inclusion of PO needs and priorities into national policies and priorities.

In what way do these arguments alter the positions of the report?
The most important change would be, the following:
· Emphasize the establishment of the free association of farmers for production, processing and servicing of agriculture as one of the pillars of an agenda of agriculture-for-development next to the five mentioned in 10.5.

Additionally, other aspects should be added or modified, including the following:
· Make positive reference to not only the proliferation of farmers’ organizations, but also to the strengthening of national federations and to their efforts to capitalize on new capacities (6.77).
· Give more examples of national farmers’ unions as an important level of organization (between 6.77 and 6.78).
· Highlight even more the need for capacity building efforts on all levels where farmers associate, i.e. capacity to organize, produce, trade, process and service agriculture
· Project an image of what a modern farmer association that fosters development looks like, along the lines of the Farmers Fighting Poverty brochure distributed before the donor seminar with that name in 2006. Please note that not every farmers’ association fosters development (additional box, see below)
· Refer to the beneficial relation between new products that private business makes available for the bottom of the pyramid and the diffusion of technology through farmers’ associations, that in effect operate as the social networks mentioned by the report (cf 3.29)
· Describe more extensively the emerging development cooperation among farmers’ organizations of OECD countries with those of developing countries[1]

Literature or research
AgriCord
2003 Reader International Seminar: From Plunder to Economic Democratisation. A debate of farm leaders with policy makers, development officers and scholars. AgriCord, Arnhem.
Gouët, C. and Leeuwis, C.
2004a Towards Capitalizing on Capacities. The evaluation of Agriterra’s programme 2001-2003. (available from www.agro-info.net)
2004b Capacity Building of Rural People’s Organisations at the local, national and international spheres. Summary of the evaluation of Agriterra’s programme on international cooperation between rural people’s organisations (2001-2003). Wageningen University, report document.
Rondot, Pierre & Marie-Hélène Collion
1999 Agricultural Producer Organizations, their contribution to rural capacity building and poverty reduction
Mercoiret Marie-Rose, Pesche Denis, Bosc Pierre Marie
2006 Rural Producer Organizations (RPOs) for pro-poor sustainable development. Report of the Paris workshop (30-31 October 2006). Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, IFAD, Ministère de l’agriculture et de la Pèche, World Bank, 2006

Cases worth highlighting
KENFAP (Kenya) – An expanding modern farmers’ union that has created a limited company to attend to the business initiatives of its members and promote entrepreneurship
CFA (India) - The establishment of the Confederation of Indian Farmers Associations, an initiative heavily promoted by Federation of Farmers Associations of Andhra Pradesh. This institutionalized farmer alliance groups together farmers’ organizations with a total membership of 120 million Indian farmers.
JNC (Peru) – Effective organization for advocacy on behalf of the producers of an important export crop
VNFU (Vietnam) – Case of a nationwide, top-down controlled farmers’ union that efficiently builds new services and tries to catch up with globalization following national policies. The lack of two-way communication in VNFU is due to the overall political setting in the country. A political machine of this kind can eventually be turned into a powerful instrument for services to farmers, access to agricultural inputs and credit covering all remote corners of the country.
Insurance – farmer-led initiatives in Nepal, Philippines and Cambodia for life insurance
Tourism – farmer-led investments in routes and lodges administered by farmer communities and serviced through the union
FinBase – Participatory multi-stakeholder processes to improve the financial management of farmers’ organizations and make them ready to SomPlan (see World Bank, 1999)
Profiling – The project started in 1999 to elaborate a methodology and practice to regularly gather systematic data on producer organizations in order to follow their development and strengthening. A first comprehensive overview of results is forthcoming in June 2007.
PIPGA – A support methodology developed for national farmers’ organizations to systematically consult their constituency, collect and summarize their points of view, have key issues researched by renowned scholars and advocated in the public debate with government and other social actors. See experiences of UNAG, Nicaragua; CNFR, Uruguay; FAA, Argentina

Other specific recommendations for improving the WDR
· 3.29 reads: “Farmers’ decisions are influenced by the experiences of farmers in their social networks, which can help reduce asymmetric information regarding the new technology.” It should add: Hence, the importance of the organization of farmers into associations and their horizontal and vertical integration into unions and federations. These organizations form the natural environment for spreading the news about new technologies and the success of colleague farmers in applying them.
· In 6.84 reference should be made to the Participatory Policy Generating Programme PIPGA that has supported member consultations of national farmers’ organizations in Latin America, linkages with institutes that can research positions taken by members, and advocacy training.
· Footnote 101 should be incorporated into the text of 6.85: Producer organizations in industrialized countries provide support to organizations in developing countries through their agri-agencies, like AGRITERRA for the Dutch cooperatives, rural women and farmers’ unions, or AFDI and FERT in France. Several European agri-agencies have allied themselves with the Canadian UPA-DI and the Japanese IDACA in AgriCord and signed a cooperation agreement with the International Federation of Agricultural Producers IFAP. The Dutch Government pledged already more than Euro 50 million to this type of direct support from farmer-to-farmer.
· The preceding message could be repeated in a new paragraph 11.74 by saying: Farmer-led, agricultural business or cooperative-led efforts for development cooperation emerged in France (FERT, AFDI), Sweden (SCC) and were copied more recently in the Netherlands (Agriterra). Their farmer-to-farmer cooperation combines direct contact among colleagues addressing productive, management, organizational and marketing issues for primary production but also for services and processing of agricultural produce. The agri-agencies strengthen the advocacy capacities of national farmers’ organizations, improve financial management and help to establish new businesses. Their performance is monitored through an extensive profiling system, which is producing a wealth of information and data on farmers’ organizations. Today the agri-agencies allied in AgriCord have 141 staff in OECD countries and over 215 in developing countries, and have an annual budget of Euro 57 million with operations in 60 countries.
· In Table 11.2 the new emerging farmer-led structure for development cooperation should have been included as AgriCord with a K for agricultural knowledge and an F for Finance/aid for agriculture.
· Include a text box on modern farmers’ organizations, like the following one:

Box 11.xx. Modern farmers’ organizations and co-operatives
Modern national farmers’ organizations are membership organisations, or federations of membership organizations. The members elect their leaders and are accountable to their constituency. Their constituency develops rural and agricultural activities with a certain importance within the country. They have a clear view on poverty reduction and believe that they themselves, as well as their members, can play a role in poverty reduction. Modern organizations are open to dialogue and collaboration. This shows also from their membership of regional and international federations, i.e. organizations that are already familiar with a framework for international cooperation.

In summary they have, at least, potentially, the following characteristics:
· Their constituency should represent a significant share of the rural population in their country.
· They should have the ambition to fulfil a specific role in development.
· They should work towards a society providing full political and economic participation of the rural population.
· They should always look for possibilities of constructive dialogue with other stakeholders (which does not preclude the option of strong protest when this is required).
· They should be open to exchange and dialogue with organizations from other countries.
· They should hold no ties with governments or political parties
· They should have democratic leadership,

In the case of collaboration with (federations of) cooperative societies, some additional criteria should be applied, like being companies that assign rights as well as duties to the membership status and that are open to cooperation and change. Mutual assistance should always be at the centre, combined with a business-like management and the ambition to achieve a positive result. The members should be the owners, having the final word in decisions regarding policy and the distribution of economic benefits.
Source: Farmers Fighting Poverty, brochure International Seminar 2006


Arnhem, April 12, 2007Dr. Kees Blokland (Agriterra) & Dr. Jan Brouwers (Wageningen International)
[1] Such relations with OECD country FO’s, with private sector, with relevant research and training centres worldwide are promoted within IFAP, through AgriCord. In the Netherlands, the Agri-ProFocus network.