Farmers on the move
Conclusions and recommendations
The year 2009 showcases what farmer-to-farmer development cooperation can mean. It entails the promise of reaching out to millions of farmers involving them directly in action for development at relatively low costs (an average € 12 per participant). In that way, this year the projects involved a spectacular 2,4 million farmers, 38% of these participants being females.
The main objective of the work of agri-agencies is to make existing farmers’ organisations stronger. The most clear evidence of strength is the membership base of an organisation, and again results in this area are spectacular. There was an overall membership growth, allowing its representativity to increase with 9%. This was particularly evident in Africa where farmers’ organisations convinced half a million farmers to join. This 25% increase of membership of the farmers’ organisations linked to the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme in Africa shows that the work of these organisations is well appreciated.
Then again, the mere fact of having more members also brings new challenges because it becomes increasingly difficult to provide services, give account about the lobby efforts or maintain the professional capacity for the organisations. On several of these basic features we witnessed indeed some stagnation. However, the indicator ‘representation’ that indicates the participation and influence of an organisation in institutionalised relations with government and other stakeholders, did indeed benefit from increased number of members. By the fact that an organisation represents more people, their influence and political relevance increases.
As referred to on many occasions, agri-agencies strengthen farmers’ organisations with the expectation that their activities enhance economic development, democratic relations and a more equal distribution of income. Through our indicators of impact, stories and evaluations we give evidence that this is the case. Yet, there is still much to do. Many small farmers are still poor and their organisations will need support for some time to come, before they can function independently on the basis of for instance membership fees. The Evidence on Impact report and the IOB evaluator came to the same conclusion. Even though we witness good progress on the indicator for financial independence (5,5%), we share this conclusion. However, when considering the previous about the funds spend on lower levels, we also need to make a stronger case of linking our organisational strengthening and institutional development efforts with a clear result orientation, both for agri-agencies as for the client farmers’ organisations. This took shape in the new focus on deliverables as defined in 2009 in AgriCord. We also hope to contribute to this by putting more emphasis on economic ventures and activities. We also want strengthen farmers’ organisations to be able to attain clear results on those issues, or on tangible benefits for members through their advocacy efforts.
These critical notes made, we stress –as was highlighted on many occasions- that there is more to do, and that this will take time. The report makes clear that strengthening of farmers’ organisations has to be a sustained effort over years. It also makes clear that our characteristic approach of farmer-to-farmer advise pays off. We were able to again lift this kind of support in absolute and relative terms, but the examples given also demonstrated that this approach works. Next to that, and the experience of SCC, UPA DI and AFDI underlines this, presence in the field can significantly help to sharpen the focus and effectiveness, though only when the organisation is convinced of the usefulness of such long term external support.
What remains are two issues that puzzle us already for some time, both related to the funding of farmers’ organisations. Farmers Fighting Poverty falls short both on mobilising direct core funding and funding mobilised in alliances with third parties. The latter is to a lesser extend offset by a higher mobilisation of resources with third parties by the farmers’ organisations themselves. Political lobby through the OECD constituent farmers’ organisations, support from the Dutch government and our own campaigns to denounce this situation did not sort the desired effect. The best arguments for support to farmers’ organisations, either directly or through agri-agencies or in alliance with agri-agencies, are given in this document. On every page we illustrate the benefits for small entrepreneurs who decided to make their farm the basis of progress for their family and their country.
We note that internationally the farmers’ organisations are increasingly mentioned as being an indispensable part of the development effort that goes and re-addresses agriculture as the motor of economic development in developing countries. The agri-agencies will continue to provide evidence and positive experiences of the huge potential of this support. They will continue to develop their efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts in order to increase the satisfaction with our interventions among farmers’ organisations.
Last year, we called upon heads of state to suit action to the word. We continue to do so, but also nurse hopes from the fact that farmers are on the move and are organising themselves increasingly. Their organisations are indeed becoming stronger, which eventually is the sole guarantee that the interest of poor smallholders will be heard and taken into consideration. We are happy to be able to contribute to this movement. And we still hope that the day the development goals will be attained, the recognition will come that it was only possible because of that social revolution taking place as we speak: the increasing number of farmers that unite for action and defence of their interest.