FARMER ORGANISATIONS DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES AND UNDERUTILIZATION OF OPPORTUNITIES: Could strengthening of FO management capacity accelerate agricultural commercialisation in Malawi?
By George Z Goliati and Opher Mwale
Even though strengthening farmer organisations management capacity provides an opportunity to exploit opportunities within agricultural commercialisation programs, experience has taught us that providing support to farmer organisations does not guarantee positive outcomes. Therefore, investing in partnerships with farmer organisations cannot guarantee a viable investment. In particular, shifting producers from relatively low value farm-gate sales to higher value markets which compensate for aggregated, quality commodity is not a straightforward process, it has been proven hard, even by well established international organisations. As such, it becomes important to consider the question that "Could strengthening of FO management capacity accelerate agricultural commercialisation in Malawi?" in relation to our newly developed e3 anchor farms model.
For instance in 2014, World Food Programme (WFP) found that Purchase for Progress (P4P) did not increase number of farmers and quantities sold through FOs in Rwanda and Burkina Faso (Ashani, 2014). By providing trainings, quality-enhancing technologies, and the demand platform of WFP, P4P developed the capacity of FOs to aggregate quality commodities, to negotiate, and to organize collective sales (WFP, 2011). Access to more lucrative, formal markets for staple commodity was expected to incentivize members of P4P FOs to invest in the production of high quality staples. It was further assumed that the farmers would increase sales of P4P staples through the FO marketing channel. However the response was contrary. It was concluded that empowering smallholder farmers through commercial opportunities requires an understanding of the drivers of farmers’ marketing choices: the available marketing options, the characteristics of each channel, and the trade-offs inherent in the selection of a marketing strategy.
It is observed that in contract farming, even when provided with markets, inputs and extension services smallholder farmers are associated with side-selling, diversion of inputs and non-compliance to standard production procedures (GoM, 2016). When we examined this and WFP's conclusion against works by Maganga (2017), Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in partnership with the African Investment Climate Research (AFRICRES) (2011; 2012; 2013 and 2014) and Mkumba (2016); we found that the drivers vary across different regions, specific FOs and even value chains as well as seasons. What may work for one FO might not work for another neighbouring or similar FO, or the next season.
Therefore, it was discovered that we need to develop a standard measure to know whether the e3 anchor farms model will work or not for various FOs and situations, and to be used as reference for modifications of the model according to the variations. The Agricultural Infrastructure Support project (AISP) evaluation report (2019) pointed out that it is important to assess the capacity (technical and managerial skills) of the communities to manage the irrigation infrastructure, with alternative arrangements being put in place where such capacity gaps exist.
Since some FOs claim successful outcomes of the collective marketing structures, the way and levels at which these structures are being used and benefiting the smallholder farmers, and the determining factors are not clear. Therefore, as AfriCan Explorations, we aim to establish the actual extent of utilisation of the structures, the determining factors and relationship with the FOs standard capacity measure. The goal of the study is to be able to precisely predict the outcomes of our support given to FOs based on the capacity performance index of the FOs, and in fact modify accordingly, in order to make effective and high-returning investments.
The objective of the study is to evaluate the use of donated warehouses and/or value addition centres (collective marketing structures) by farmer organisations in relation to their capacity. Specific objectives include; (i) to assess the extent of using the warehouses/value addition centres, (ii) to establish factors determining the extent of using the warehouses, (iii) to establish the capacity index of the farmer organisations and (iv) to assess the relationship between the use of the structures and the capacity index of the farmer organisations. The study aims to answer the following questions; (i) in which ways and at what levels are the farmer organisations using the donated collective marketing structures? and (ii) is there any relationship between use of donated collective marketing structures and the capacity performance index of the farmer organisation?
This study is going to contribute to the body of knowledge on how the farmer organisations are using the warehouses/value addition centres, in which ways, at what levels and why. This will help donors, services providers, policymakers, the general public and other stakeholders to design effective investments in the structures as well as policies and guiding principles for future projects or interventions to improve their use. Warehouses or value addition centres cost a lot of government or donor money. Investments need to be cost-effective. Most importantly, the warehouses or value addition centres are a major asset or factor needed for venturing into high value markets. If not effective, farmers will remain victims of exploitative traders and price volatility. Farmers cannot access high value markets without them.
However, to produce reliable results, the study design requires a huge sample of farmer organisations, covering all regions, ample time to interview a single FO and some considerable capacity. This would require a huge amount of funds in relation to what AfriCan Explorations has, and of course an extra capacity. In this case, we look forward to partner with anyone interested in this particular survey or knowledge search.
