I think it is important to learn from 'what works' for this exercise, obviously taking account of the local political and economic context. When we did the review for the ASFG smallholder enabling framework (www.asfg.org.uk), we tried to find case studies across Africa of specific policies, regulations, laws, and practices that have contributed to the transformation of smallholder market systems, and really struggled... there was a lot more analysis and information on what is not working... The Brazilian government's public procurement programme, however, does offer a good example of how to transform the smallholder sector: the National School Food Programme, for example, provides a stable market for smallholder produce, which has helped transform many family farms. This, however, requires thinking and acting beyond business regulatory reform.
Larger scale agribusiness input suppliers clearly see smallholder farmers as a market opportunity and while the producers see them as way to access improved and tested technology.
Agribusinesses that procure, process and market agricultural product can see smallholder farmers as a way of securing product without the risk of going into primary production themselves. There is actually surpisingly few studies which paint for us a picture of how farmers perceive agribusinesses and benefits or otherwise of contract farming.
Recent surveys that we have been carrying out around 39 mature agribusinesses with 220 interviews with surrounding communities has painted a picture that is far less controversial than normally painted. To paraphrase there were mainly minor complaints, i.e "I wish they would not drive the tractors as quickly down the village high street" but they appreciated it for jobs, i.e "it has provided a job for my niece", a secure market for their output and attracted in additional social and hard infrastructure. But the situation is exteremely mixed, i.e. there are some very good and some very bad examples. But most are patchy.
The divergence comes where larger scale agribusinesses most often want to buy rural materials as close to the farm gate so that they can control the value added from the farm gate through to the consumers themselves. Where farmer organizations are really important, is in being able to take greater control over the value-added in the supply chains.
As I have explained ealier, this is not part of the BBA agreeement, but very much part of the larger World Bank program. As you know the Bank's strategy is very much focused on poverty elimination and shared prosperity. The BBA focuses on the second part.
Ultimately there will be 80 countries. This is a purposeful sample covering all regions and the different stages in agricultural transformation, i.e. agriculturally based transition one and transition two (a deeper analysis than the WDR in 2008 used) and rbanizing and as well as developed countries. We will not be covering small island states because the unit cost will be too high.
Christina, could you send me a copy of this report - gdixie@wordlbank.org, I would really appreciate absorbing its findings,
We will have a draft report on the 1st 10 pilot countries in May (ish) - and build in another 30 countries next year and + 40 in 2016.
We think of it as a program - that will be influencing policy makers in 10 - 15 year time. We have thought a lot about impact and included lessons from what we know works. And it isn't long technical reports.
Grahame thanks for making the point about the farmers view - this entire discussion invokes an important lesson about how where our view comes from shapes our outcomes. Much of this comes from how we define and look at risk - see here for a post on Ag Risks. If we can only come up with methods/policies/activities that support the commercial/agribusiness community, then we have seriously missed the boat. From your example of moving inputs closer to farm gate, I can see this as a problem for small holders since much of what is successful for small holders (here in the US and abroad) is the more direct connection with the consumer. Cut out the middle men, including a corporation with control of both the supply and value chains, and you have a much friendly market for small holders - a conflict of interest, I presume for the agribusiness firm. There lies the struggle, I think, we are finding as we have these discussions but when you are on the ground the overarching feeling is that small holders still continue to get the short end of the stick whenever they are engaged with large private sector players.