Research-Action federative Project

Apm-Afrique et RIAD

The following memo consists of a proposal drawn up(1) after talks between RIAD, APM-Africa, and the Asiatic countries at the meeting at Yaoundé (Cameroon) in September 1996.

It is a provisional document that deals with the organization of a collective work effort around a strategic theme, the "structuring of small-holder and indigenous organizations", which was chosen as a priority for the RIAD and APM-Africa networks.

After having been examined and amended by the working group(2) set up at Yaoundé, it will be distributed by the offices of continental networks in the different countries; members of the national networks concerned are invited to contribute their observations, and to specify what form their contribution will take.

The past fifteen years have seen dramatic changes in the international and national situation concerning family, small-holder, and indigenous farming. These changes have had a marked effect on local production, and consequently on the living conditions of the populations concerned. The challenge facing small-holder and indigenous organizations is how best to adapt to these changes in the national and international context, and how to exploit any opportunities that they might offer.

Family, small-holder, and indigenous farming plays an important role in the economic and social structure of southern hemisphere countries:

• demographically, they often form the largest group of the national population, and always the majority of local populations;

• their production, agricultural, processing and marketing activities form the basis of agricultural economies, and they play a primary role in providing food for rural populations and towns. They are a leading contributor to national wealth, and provide one of the main exports;

• family, small-holder, and indigenous farmers are an essential part of the national landscape, and are the key element in land planning and management of natural resources;

• they contribute to the social, political, and cultural equilibrium, in particular by keeping alive traditional values which form part of their national heritage;

• the ability of family, small-holder, and indigenous farming to modernize, to achieve a sustained increase in production, and to diversify, has been widely demonstrated in many northern and southern hemisphere countries. They have also demonstrated certain advantages over larger scale agriculture (industrial farming, co-operatives), particularly as concerns: respect for the environment, costs of production, and ability to adapt to changing markets.

2 - Unfavourable conditions for integration

The integration of family, small-holder, and indigenous farming in the overall society, and their interaction with the markets, generally occurs in unfavourable conditions and most often in controlled situations:

• whilst it is true to say that family farming provides an important contribution to the national economy, it has not enjoyed the benefits of re-investment, as compared for instance to the technical, economic, and social sectors. A major concern for southern hemisphere countries, indeed now more than ever before, remains the improvement in agricultural production conditions, and in the living standards of family, small-holder, and indigenous farmers;

• despite their demographic and economic significance, the importance of family farmers in the overall society remains limited, and they still have little ability to influence the political, social, and cultural situation. This can be explained by their widespread geographical distribution, poor information and training facilities, a high degree of illiteracy, and sometimes their lack of communication with other social groups. In addition to this the different political systems in these countries are not conducive to improving their situation.

In the 1980’s the policies of structural adjustment and withdrawal of the State from a number of agricultural support functions had a strong impact on family, small-holder, and indigenous farming.

Enterprise zones were created in the economic sector, aided on occasions by new laws and statutes. The national situation, however, tended to create new problems: withdrawal of State aid, privatization, abolition of pricing policies, aid and subsidies (inputs, credit, compensation mechanisms), end of trade controls, etc..

Production has become more expensive, supply more precarious, and marketing less secure.

The ability of family, small-holder, and indigenous farmers to adapt to the effects of structural adjustment and State withdrawal has been very varied. Reform has been more rapid in those areas with high agro-ecological potential, which have strategic crops to supply the national economy and a solvent demand, than in areas suffering from various handicaps (distance from urban centers, less favourable ecological conditions). The differences between regions and different types of producers has often been exaggerated, since increasing poverty and worsening production and living conditions have added to the problems of areas less favored from the start. Small-holder organizations have not generally succeeded in gaining influential positions in the economy, which have been privatized.

The changes brought about by structural adjustment have been followed and reinforced since the 1980’s by marked changes in the international scene, and by their impact at national and local level:

• the progressive liberalization of international markets has witnessed the end of major international agreements for agricultural produce, and the abolition of customs and tariff barriers, terminated by the OMC. These changes have led to a radical change in the international situation, and affect the position of family, small-holder, and indigenous farming with regards to the home and export markets.

• these changes have resulted in sub-regional economic groups being formed or revived to aid their economic integration (ALENA, MERCOSUR, APEC, etc.), which take into account to differing extents family, small-holder, and indigenous farming.

• the globalisation of commercial exchanges and processes of regional integration is accompanied by a globalization of production conditions (increased competitivity leading to decreases in production costs).

• this movement of economic integration is reinforced by the growing role of large institutions that influence national policy. This can be seen in particular by the orientation of economic policy towards the neo-liberal model, as well as by the implementation of government methods inspired by northern country models (early decentralization, sometimes formal "democracies", "good government") differently adapted, in their practical methods, to the historic, social, and cultural realities of the societies concerned.

The context of family farming has become more complex, unstable, and competitive.

The survival and continuation of family, small-holder, and indigenous farming mostly depends on their ability:

• to understand the new situation and power structures;

• to define strategies of action adapted to the changing situation that will best serve their interests;

• to collaborate with other parties (economic, institutional and political, public and private) to construct a more equitable working environment.

Analysis, definition of plans of action, and negotiations with other parties concern all sectors of the life of family farmers facing new challenges. Without going into great detail, one can mention:

• the definition of lasting production systems from the ecological, technical, and economic points of view;

• interactions with markets;

• the planning, content, and working of aids to family farmers;

• the participation of producers in the making of national and regional agricultural policy, and in particular the definition of modular protection mechanisms for national production;

as well as:

• the improvement of information and training services for farmers;

• the improvement of welfare services (education, health);

and also:

• access to economic and political decision making;

• increased participation of family farmers in the construction of cultural policies;

• etc..

New and stronger small-holder and indigenous organizations are necessary for the promotion of family farming. Only those organizations that:

• are registered and approved,

• are able to represent the interests of their members,

• are capable of drawing up proposals and putting them into practice,

will be able:

• to define development aid strategies and action programs suited to the new context, that satisfy the expectations of their members;

• to contribute to the setting up of new forms of co-ordination between various parties, and of new methods of regulation which take into account the economic, social, and cultural interests of family farming.

There are throughout the world many different forms of small-holder or indigenous organizations where one can see the existence of social movements in rural environments:

• the association of west-african small-holders, in search of social acceptance to strengthen their fundamental initiatives;

• organizations that involved in the struggle for land, in countries such as Brasil or the Philippines, sometimes taking the form of guerilla movements (Mexico);

• indigenous movements that develop global project of a cultural nature, that include the defence of small-holder systems (indigenous movement in Equador, Mexico);

• crypto-communist movements in countries that still have collectivities (Russia), or post-decollectivization organizations (Vietnam);

• modern small producer organizations (in Western Europe or souther Latin America) confronted with the new challenges of global economy.

The ability of small-holders and indigenous organizations to react to changes in their situation is widely varying, since the small-holder organizations are very different:

• to the extent to which they are structured, and the levels at which they operate;

• in their form (groups, associations, co-operatives, syndicates, collaborations);

• according to their activities (specialist or general organizations), and results;

• in their varying degrees of experience (from the newly formed to the old established), and their different levels of access to information. They also have different methods and tools for analyzing and defining objectives, programs of activity, and for follow-up and evaluation operations;

• in the relations that they establish with exterior economic and institutional bodies, with the private sector and public services, with the State.... and in their ability to form alliances, to construct partnerships, to increase their autonomy, etc...

2.1. - Despite their obvious differences, once small-holder and indigenous organizations pass the micro-local level and federate basic groups, they appear to come together on two points:

2.1.1. - Firstly, they have two main objectives in common: support for development, and the representation and defence of the interests of their members with regards to other parties.

Support for development is translated in most cases by the setting up of collective services for family economic units (group purchasing, credit, processing and marketing of products, as well as shared mechanisation, collective machinery, etc.). Considerable efforts are often made to improve access to information, and to put in place training systems etc.. Generally speaking, small-holder organizations attempt with differing degrees of skill and success to:

• reconstruct the economic environment of agricultural production by filling in the gap made by the withdrawal of the State;

• repair the damage to public services (health, education) brought about by structural adjustment programs.

The representation and defence of interests of family farmers can take very different forms. At the local level it could be negotiation for outside aid, in order to make the services put in place by the organization work. At national level it could be co-ordination, possibly by a syndicate, of local groups in order to improve local production and processing.

2.1.2. The second point in common is that most organizations are aware of the need to adapt their objectives, their methods of action, their relations with the exterior, and their structure, to cope with the new challenges. To admittedly differing degrees, this awareness is leading to increasingly explicit self-questioning:

• how to acquire the means of analysis necessary for understanding the local, national, and international context? How to identify and exploit opportunities without falling into the trap of opportunism? How to identify and classify the problem areas?

• how to construct medium and long term strategies and programs whilst satisfying the short term requirements of their members?

• how to plan ahead in an unstable economy?

• how to combine local action, based on concrete situations, with actions at other levels of decision making?

• how to define the present role of the State, and to bring it to assume its responsibilities and put into effect an agricultural policy, together with small-holder organizations?

• how to define the technical content of renovated of production systems that enable family farmers to play an important role in economic development?

• how to bolster up the power of small-holder organizations in increasing exchanges with other national organizations countries, in establishing relations and alliances with other social categories and with institutions... without becoming dependent on outside sources?

2.2. - Apart from this common ground, affecting small-holder and indigenous organizations to varying degrees, differences exist in the matter of strategic choice. These differences particularly concern the political stance taken by organizations:

• certain organizations subscribe (explicitly or implicitly) to a socio-professional politic; their objectives and actions are focused on promoting family, small-holder, and indigenous farming in harmony with the private sector, public services, and political powers. They use the abilities and means at their disposal: to establish partnerships and find compromises at the local, regional, and national level; to shape district and agricultural policy proposals; to cater, sometimes explicitly, for consumer interests in order to strengthen their position, etc.. Negotiations are not always smooth, but are anchored on the trilogy ‘proposal/mobilization/negotiation’, and on an acceptance of the legitimacy of other parties, which small-holder organizations do not attempt to replace;

• other organizations add to this socio-professional approach a political dimension, which can concern not only the local level (access to local powers put in place by the politics of decentralization for example), but also, though more rarely, the national level (the indigenous movement in Equador for example, which affirms its political role by presenting candidates at the legislative and municipal elections);

• certain organizations do not appear to have adopted any clear political orientation;

• in a few rare cases (Chiapas for example), the debate is primarily considered in political terms, with the socio-professional aspect taking second place.

The successful adaptation of small-holder organizations to the new challenges facing family farming thus depends on the structuration and experience of organizations, and the way in which they operate. The way in which the adaptation is carried out is also of crucial importance. Whether they want to or not, small-holder organizations find themselves inexorably drawn towards change. Such changes could be:

• straightforward modifications, sometimes regressive, provoked by a degradation of conditions of insertion of family farmers in the society, that small-holder organizations are unable to counter;

• the search for market and social integration at local, regional, and national levels; this is the case when organizations have sufficient means;

• strategies of consolidation, cessation, or displacement of action in the political sector when acceptance or negotiation is impossible.

Due to this, some organizations question:

• the pertinence of their analyses

• the repercussions of their choices;

• the tools and methods necessary for implementing strategies of action that integrate short, medium, and long term objectives;

• the methods of interaction and working at different geographical scales and different levels of decision making;

• on the interaction between the development support role they fulfil and their responsibility to represent and defend certain interests that they consider indispensable;

• etc...

The RIAD and APM Africa networks have each contributed to the factors below, and decided to construct a federative project based on the comparison of concrete situations in different Latin American and African countries. Members of one or two Asiatic countries might join this project.

For RIAD and APM Africa members, the general objectives of the project are: to reinforce the planning and power of small-holder and indigenous organizations at local, regional, and national levels; to increase their ability to define and execute programs of action that are geared to the new economic and institutional context, and that conform with the interests of family farming.

The specific objectives of the project are as follows:

• to create a suitable climate for the collective analysis on how small-holder and indigenous organizations adapt their actions and structure to adjust to the new context, and react to change;

• to use concrete examples to identify the choices taken by small-holder organizations and their repercussions, the ideology, necessary conditions, and precautions essential for their preparation and implementation by organizations overseeing their progress;

• to prepare tools and the methods to help decision making (analysis of context, planning, and programming, monitoring and evaluation);

• to prepare the tools and methods to help development to reinforce the efficiency of actions carried out in this domain by small-holder and indigenous organizations;

• reinforce the negotiating ability of small-holder organizations at different levels of decision making, in particular by improving communication between their different levels.

The research-action project is based on two central themes: analysis of the present situation, and preparation of tried and tested principles, methods, and tools.

2.1. - Analysis of the present situation

The project aims to use an analysis of the present situation to highlight the changes already made by small-holder and indigenous organizations, together with the viability of ongoing adjustment processes.

This analysis will be carried out by small-holder organizations with a certain amount of outside support, and will be based on the two following important questions:

2.1.1. - How do small-holder and indigenous organizations define their technical, economic, social, cultural, and political project in the medium and long term?

• which analyses of the economic and institutional environment?

• which perception of the future of family, small-holder and indigenous farming?

• how will the expectations and needs of their members be taken into account, and how will members be involved in preparing the project organization?

• what methods and equipment are used by the organizations? and with what results?

• what agreements have already been concluded by the organizations? with what results?

2.1.2. How will small-holder and indigenous organizations carry out their project?

• how are priority considerations of producers, and opportunities afforded by the outside environment, taken into account? how are potential differences catered for?

• what mechanisms for development support have been put in place? what results have been obtained? what strengths and weaknesses have been noted? what are the questions posed by (i) the durable operating of agricultural services managed by small-holder and indigenous organizations, and (ii) the functioning of services of general interest?

• how is representation/protection of producers interests organized? via what actions are they expressed? how do they interact with other functions of the organization?

• what outside support is available to small-holder and indigenous organizations? how are partnerships with outside institutions defined and operated? with what results?

• is there interaction between organizations situated at different geographical scales? how can coherence between the local, regional, and national objectives/programs be achieved? what problems could emerge?

2.2. Preparation of methods and tools

This objective will be carried out by making the most of existing experience and equipment, and by specific operational programs jointly implemented with small-holder organizations. It would also be helped by contributions from organizations not directly involved in the study, and by benefiting from previous programs implemented by institutional, private, or public concerns. Work will be based on the following questions:

2.2.1. - What information, methods and tools do different levels of small-holder and indigenous organizations need to define a technical and economic project which includes short, medium, and long term objectives?

This question concerns the following:

• analysis of the impact of changes in the international and national context on small-holder farming;

• future evolutions in demand for agricultural products (volume, quality, conditioning) from home and foreign markets, and how family farming can meet these demands;

• environmental considerations, and management of natural resources;

• access to resources, means of production, and intensification processes;

• employment in rural environments, and the creation of revenue by the diversification of production and activities (such as food and agriculture);

• the evolution of men/women, the old and the young;

• etc..

This wide ranging question also raises questions concerning the following:

• the interaction of small-holder and indigenous organizations with research, and the role they can play in defining research orientations and priorities, in the development of new technological and economic references;

• awareness of agricultural policy, and the strategies of large institutions;

• etc..

2.2.2. - What are the conditions and means necessary for small-holder and indigenous organizations to implement their technical and economic project?

This is another question that raises several points for discussion:

• the role of small-holder organizations in creating agricultural support services and their long term conditions of functioning;

• the place of small-holder organizations in the new institutional configurations for producer support/advice: forms of co-operation between small-holder and indigenous organizations, research, public and private support bodies, in particular for the distribution of technical information, economic training, and management.

• the construction of an environment conducive to collaboration between small-holder and indigenous organizations and other economic and institutional bodies, that would encourage new co-operative efforts on a territorial (local development) or sectorial basis (distribution of tasks, and the wealth produced by a trade, for example).

• etc..

The implementation by small-holder organizations of their technical and economic project also raises questions concerning their internal structure, communication within organizations, decision making processes, and the exercise of power. These questions must be addressed if small-holder and indigenous organizations are to acquire the status necessary for effective action in rural societies, and real power of negotiation with outside parties.

2.3. - Apart from the technical and economic project of small-holder and organizations, there is a third and more general question: how can small-holder and indigenous organizations contribute to defining new regulations (territorial and sectarian, economic and social) essential to the survival and the promotion of family farming?

This question raises the following themes:

• relations with the State and its different local representatives (small-holder organizations and local authorities) at the national level, with family farming being taken into account in the definition of agricultural policy, land planning, and decentralization, in particular by setting up new systems of mediation;

• interactions with economic micro-concerns (firms) and institutions (international organizations).

Given the of questions raised and their importance, the federative project of RIAD and APM Africa does not claim to tackle them in depth, nor to provide definitive solutions.

The project starts by analyzing and comparing a dozen cases to define the tools and methods used by small-holder organizations, and to define their orientations, and translate them into programs of action.

3.1. - Characteristics of the approach adopted

• Small-holder and indigenous organizations will be carrying out most of the work, and benefiting from its results. It is they who will be responsible for bringing in outside research and development support organizations, and in the manner that they operate.

• A major factor in the work will be the interaction between the micro-local, local, regional, national, and international levels, which involve:

- an analysis of changes of context, the forms that they assume, and their impact;

- the adjustments taking place within small-holder organizations and/or their reactions;

- the prospective definition of programs of action. Here, work will focus on the interaction between territorial dynamics constructed at the local and regional levels, the sectarian dynamics that concern trades/products and agricultural policies.

• Work will develop around a common self-interrogation which will be formalized during the first phase of the project. The small-holder and indigenous organizations concerned could agree to contribute to all or part of this questioning process.

• As the project progresses, it will combine different types of activities:

- exchanges of experience

- training organizations (cf. for example the Small-holder Academy of APM Africa and the project of training small-holders in MERCOSUR countries),

- in-depth analyses of selected situations,

- activities for the testing of tools and methods of analysis, of planning, of programming, of monitoring and evaluation,

- a collective gathering of results, leading to certain reports being distributed, in particular within RIAD and APM Africa.

3.2. - Countries, organizations, and support bodies concerned

At the present time, the small-holder and indigenous organizations and other concerns that have agreed to participate in the federative project are:

In Latin America:

• Equador: the CONAIE (contact: Fernando LARREA).

• Mexico: the Ayala Coordination Plan and National Network of RIAD (contact: Emilio GARCIA).

• Brazil: IBASE (contact: Candido GRZYBOWSKI).

• Cuba: Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños: ANAP (contact: Mavis ALVAREZ).

• Uraguay: Coordinación Nacional de Fomento Rural (contact: Silvio MARZAROLI).

In Africa:

• Tanzania: the MVIWATA and SOKOINE University of Agriculture (contact: Dr MATTEE, Thierry LASSALE).

• Sénégal: the APM national network (contact: Bara GOUDIABY).

• Mali: the SYCOC and Association of Small-holder Organizations (to be confirmed) (contact: Antoine BERTHÉ).

• Cameroon: the APM national network (contact: Jeanot Minla MFOU’OU).

• Bénin: the Departmental Union of Producers of Ouémé, Mono, and the Atlantic (contact: Athanase KOUDANDE).

• Southern Africa: the Land Development Unit associated with Western Cape University (contact: Tommy PHILIPS).

In Asia:

• Vietnam: the contact is Mr Dao TETUAN

In Europe:

• FPH (Pierre VUARIN).

• University of Paris I/CEDES (Maxime HAUBERT).

• CIRAD-SAR (Marie-Rose MERCOIRET).

• CIEPAC (Jacques BERTOMÉ).

3.3. - Project duration and timetable

The estimated duration of the project is four years.

The first year (1997) will be the starting year, devoted to the following activities:

• finalizing of the project:

- discussion of the present proposal;

- confirmation of participation by each party.

• organization of a workshop defining a common context, concrete means (methods, tools, organization), the schedule of events, the extent of respective participations, methods for circulating information, co-ordination etc..

• the search for complementary funding;

• the initiation of activities in each of the countries: information within the small-holder organizations, availability of outside partners, etc..

The second and third years (1998-1999) will be mainly devoted to work in each of the countries, and thematic exchanges; sub-regional and continental meetings will also be organized with in this latter case the participation of one or two representatives of organizations from other continents.

A progressive update will be carried out concerning for example:

• case studies per country;

• tools and methods used

• subjects for consideration;

• etc...

The fourth year (2000) will be devoted to mainly:

• an update by country;

• the holding of an international workshop bringing together all the participants of the project;

• an update of project results;

• the distribution of results (publications, continental workshop organizations, sub-regions, by country, regions, etc.).

1/ by Marie-Rose MERCOIRET and Jacques Berthomé.

2/ Composed of Fernando LARREA (Equador), Silvio MARZAROLI (Uraguay), Mavis ALVAREZ (Cuba), Bara GOUDIABY (Senegal), Jeanot Minla MFOU’OU (Cameroon), Pierre VUARIN, Jacques BERTHOME, and Marie-Rose MERCOIRET (France).