IFAD and Farmers’ Organizations

Partnership in progress: 2010-2011 Report to the global meeting of the Farmers’ Forum in conjunction with the thirty-fifth Session of the Governing Council of IFAD 20-21 February 2012

IFAD Interdepartmental Policy Reference Group on the Farmers’ Forum

IFAD and Farmers’ Organizations

Partnership in progress: 20102011 Report to the fourth global meeting of the Farmers’ Forum in conjunction with the Thirty-fifth Session of the Governing Council of IFAD 20-21 February 2012

1

Contents Executive summary Introduction I. Farmers organisations involvement in the design of new IFAD country programmes and projects II. Direct financial support to FOs III. Women in agriculture and Farmers' Organizations Appendix

Abbreviations and acronyms ACCD

Agència Catalana de Cooperació al Desenvolupament

AFA

Asian Farmers‟ Association for Sustainable Rural Development

ANOPACI

Association Nationale des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles de Côte d‟Ivoire

AP

Asia and the Pacific

AROPA

Projet d‟Appui au Renforcement des Organisations Professionnelles et aux Services Agricoles (Madagascar)

ASDP

Agricultural Sector Development Programme (Tanzania)

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASPRODEB

Association Sénégalaise pour le Promotion du Développement à la Base

CAFTA

Central America Free Trade Agreement

CFS

Committee on World Food Security

CNCR

Conseil National de Concertation et de Coopération des Ruraux (Sénégal)

CNOP

Coordination National des Organisations Paysannes du Mali

CNOPG

Confédération Nationale des Organisations Paysannes de Guinée

COPROFAM

Confederación de Organizaciones de Productores Familiares del MERCOSUR

COSOP

Country Strategic Opportunities Programme

CPM

Country Programme Manager

CPMT

Country Programme Management Team

CSA

Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires

CSD

United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development

CSO

Civil Society Organization

CTA

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation

EAFF

East African Farmers‟ Federation

ECOWAS

Economic Community of West African States

EPA

Economic Partnership Agreements

ESA

Eastern and Southern Africa

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FETRAF-SUL

Federação dos Trabalhadores na Agricultura Familiar da Região Sul

FI.FA.TA

Association for Farmers‟ Progress (Madagascar)

FO

Farmers‟ and Rural Producers‟ Organization

FOCSA

Farmer Organization Support Centre for Africa

HLC

High-Level Conference

ICCARD

International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

IFAP

International Federation of Agricultural Producers

KENFAP

Kenyan National Federation of Agricultural Producers

LAC

Latin America and the Caribbean

LVC

La Via Campesina

MDG

Millennium Development Goals 4

MERCOSUR

Mercado Común del Sur

MIJARC/IMARY International Movement of Agricultural Rural Youth MUSECH

Movimiento Unitario Campesino y Etnias de Chile

MVIWATA

Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania/Defender of Farmer‟s Interests by Farmers Themselves (Tanzania)

NENA

Near East and North Africa

NEPAD

New Partnership for African‟s Development

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NORAD

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

PAKISAMA

National Federation of Peasant Organizations (the Philippines)

PROPAC

Plateforme Sous-régionale des Organisations Paysannes d'Afrique Centrale

PSAOP

Agricultural Services Producers‟ Organizations Project (Senegal)

REAF

Special Meeting on Family Agriculture (MERCOSUR)

ROPPA

Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et Producteurs Agricoles d‟Afrique de l‟Ouest

RuLIP

Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project (Cambodia)

SACAU

Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions

SDC

Swiss Development Cooperation

SEWA

Self Employed Women‟s Association (India)

SFOAP

Support to Farmers‟ Organisations in Africa Programme

SHOMAP

Smallholder Agriculture and Marketing Programme (Kenya)

SWAp

Sector-Wide Approach

UEMOA

West African Economic and Monetary Union

UNAG

Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos (Nicaragua)

UNCTAD

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

WFF

World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fishworkers

WFFP

World Federation of Fisher Peoples

WINFA

Windward Islands Farmers Association

WOCAN

Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management

WCA

Western and Central Africa

WTO

World Trade Organization

ZFU

Zimbabwe Farmers Union

The Farmer‟s Forum was created in February 2005 at a workshop organized by IFAD, the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP), La Via Campesina (LVC) and the Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et Producteurs Agricoles de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (ROPPA). Participants in the workshop agreed on a brief yet far-reaching statement that formed the basis of the Farmers‟ Forum initiative. A Steering Committee composed of representatives of IFAD and of seven networks of farmers and fishers was then constituted to guide the process. It was agreed that the global meeting of the Forum would be held every two years, in conjunction with IFAD‟s Governing Council, and that national and regional consultations would be carried out between each global meeting. The Farmers‟ Forum was thereby established as a permanent process of consultation and dialogue between farmers‟ and rural producers‟ organizations (FOs), IFAD and governments that 1 focuses on rural development and poverty reduction . I t s first global meeting was held in Rome in February 2006. At its conclusion, the Steering Committee agreed upon a list of recommendations to IFAD that were presented to the Governing Council. In May 2006, the President of IFAD participated in the World Farmers Congress of IFAP in Seoul. In his keynote address to the Congress, he responded to the recommendations of the Farmers‟ Forum and made a number of commitments on behalf of the Fund. One of these was to monitor progress in IFAD‟s engagement with FOs and to report back to the Farmers‟ Forum. Partnership in Progress is the instrument through which IFAD reports to the global meeting of the Farmers Forum. Reporting on IFAD-FO partnership. IFAD‟s previous reports to the Forum, “Partnerships in progress”, were prepared in February 2008 and 2010 presenting the evolution of IFAD‟s partnership with FOs over the biennia 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 respectively. The present 1 report reviews the evolution of this partnership over the biennium 2010-2011. As with the previous reports, it is organized around the main recommendations formulated during previous meetings of the Forum.

Executive summary This report is based on a survey of all IFAD Country Programme Managers (CPMs) and a number of IFAD country staff and a desk review of selected regional grants and country programs. The survey showed that IFAD relationships with FOs in country programs are now widespread in all regions. Over the biennium, IFAD and FOs entered into at least one type of collaboration in 85% of the countries where IFAD operates. In West and Central Africa, collaboration occurred in all countries. This is the first region to achieve the 2010 Farmers‟ Forum recommendation to extend the partnerships to all countries. Consultation with FOs in the formulation of IFAD country strategies (COSOPs) and the design of agricultural development projects is now the norm. According to CPMs all COSOP formulations during the biennium included consultations with FOs and this was also the case for about 90% of project design processes. The nature and intensity of these consultations varied from one country to another according to the national context, FO capacity and government and IFAD staff willingness to engage with FOs. In 2010, the Forum recommended the creation of a flexible demand led facility to facilitate the participation of FOs in the COSOP and project cycle. A first attempt to respond to this request has been a pilot program with AgriCord to support FOs in their engagement with IFAD country programs in selected sub-Saharan African and CEN countries. The impact of this improved participation on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers is yet to be fully assessed. A joint assessment of results and impact should be discussed during the Forum meeting. Direct support to farmers’ organizations has increased significantly since the beginning of the Farmers‟ Forum process. During the last biennium, the large regional grants in support of FOs approved in 2008/2009 reached full implementation and new grant programs with FOs were approved. Direct support for capacity building has reached 80 national FOs in 60 countries, including 36 national FOs in sub-Saharan Africa. This support has enabled FOs to engage independently on policy dialogue, lobbying and advocacy or to conduct their own studies or consultations for the interest of their members. Significant results have been achieved in this regard in a number of countries of sub-Saharan Africa (with the SFOAP program), Asia (MTCP program) and Latin America (COPROFAM and REAF programs). The ESFIM program operating in 10 countries in three regions also delivered its first results in 2011. Direct grant funding also strengthened national FO institutional and operational capacities, enabling them to become more effective partners for engagement in large investment projects, including as key implementation partners in agricultural and value chains development projects. For IFAD, the systematic use of regional/global grants (instead of country grants) to support national FOs allowed for a considerable reduction of transaction costs per unit. In some cases, as for the grants under the SFOAP program, co-financed by IFAD and the European Commission, this approach strengthened both national FOs and their regional networks in a mutually reinforcing way. A number of these regional grants to FOs triggered by the Farmers Forum process already reached or will soon reach completion. Directions for next phases will be part of the discussion at the 2012 meeting of the Forum. Despite significant progress in the partnerships, the level of integration, coherence and synergy between the different types of collaboration at country level remains uneven. In some countries such as Argentina, Burundi, Cote d‟Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Moldova, Senegal or Vietnam, the partnership is now multidimensional, ranging from national policy dialogue with the government to specific project implementation at provincial or district level. In these countries, grant- and loan-funded projects and tripartite dialogue with government are complementary. In other countries, the collaboration is still patchy or simply formalistic. There are country specific reasons for such differences which will be discussed during the Forum. What is emerging from the survey and mapping exercise is that in the majority of countries there is still a considerable potential for improving the coherence and integration of IFAD multiple engagements with the organizations of its target groups.

Introduction 1. The present report1 reviews, from the perspective of IFAD staff, the evolution of the partnership between IFAD and Farmers and Rural Producers Organisations (FOs) over the biennium 2010-2011. The report highlights evolving practices, achievements, lessons learned and pinpoints areas where improvements are needed. A number of cases studies are presented in appendix. 2. As with the previous editions, the report is organized around the main recommendations formulated by the Farmers Forum. As in the past, the proceedings of the 2012 Forum meeting will reflect comments and reactions from Farmers‟ Organisations as well as their expectations and recommendations for the way forward. 3. During the period under review IFAD renewed its Strategic Framework. The profile of rural people‟s organisations remains high in the Strategic Famework 2011-2015. Capacities of organizations of poor rural women and men are specifically mentioned in two of the five strategic objectives of the Fund: Poor rural women and men and their organizations able to manage profitable, sustainable and resilient farm and non-farm enterprises, Poor rural women and men and their organizations able to influence policies and institutions that affect their livelihoods, 4. The two main functions of FOs, both as economic agents and as social representation for policy influence, are acknowledge at the most strategic level. Support to rural producers‟ organizations is one of the eight Areas of Thematic Focus of the Fund: IFAD will continue to support the empowerment of poor rural women and men by promoting effective and sustainable rural producers’ organizations and by engaging with existing organizations 2. 5. During the period, the frequency and quality of interactions between the Fund and FOs in the formulation of country strategies (COSOPs) programs and investment projects continued to improve. This is reviewed in the first chapter of the report. 6. The large regional grants supporting FOs capacity building efforts that were approved in 2008 and 2009 entered into full implementation in 2010. A number of new grants were also approbed during the biennium. Chapter 2 presents an overview of these direct support initiatives. 7. Chapter 3 reviews IFAD response to the recommendation of the FAFO 2010 on women leadership in agriculture and farmers organisations.

1

This report was prepared by J-Ph.Audinet ( IFAD), I.Christensen (Investment Centre, FAO), R.Longo (IFAD), D. Diagne (Consultant); S. Lipari (Consultant) and B.Gerli (Investment Centre Division, FAO). It received inputs from the members of the Policy Reference Group on the Farmers‟ Forum. 2 IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-2015, p. 34.

1.

FARMERS ORGANISATIONS INVOLVEMENT IN THE DESIGN OF NEW IFAD COUNTRY PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS

Recommendations of the 2010 Farmer‟s Forum on IFAD-FO partnership in country programmes: •

Extend the partnership to all countries where IFAD is operating, taking into account the diversity of the organizations of poor rural people.



Systematically include at least one national apex organization in the IFAD Country Program Management Team in order to contribute to the steering of the IFAD country program (COSOP formulation, project and program design and implementation, policy dialogue and other initiatives).



Create a flexible, demand-led facility within IFAD‟s budget for facilitating the participation of farmers‟ organizations in the COSOP and the project cycle.



Develop operational guidelines to support the systematic engagement of farmers‟ organizations at country level; in particular in the monitoring and implementation of IFAD programmes.



Ensure that the already strong practice of consultation with farmers‟ organizations is systematized; in this regard, IFAD and regional/international farmers‟ organizations could maintain a roster of organizations that should be systematically invited when IFAD is about to embark on project design.



Take stock of important lessons from programmes with farmers‟ organizations, with a view to replication and upscaling, and to promote South-South exchanges and knowledge among the farmers. (In this regard, we ecommend exploring the possibility of replicating the programme „Learning Routes‟, which was successfully implemented in Latin America.)



Monitoring and evaluation. It is recommended that M&E systems for a project be systematically open to farmers‟ organizations, as a way for them to be able to influence projects as well as to have access to key information. The involvement of farmers‟ organizations in the Country Programme Management Team will be the entry point to collectively monitor the outcomes and impacts of IFAD country programmes and to assess the quality of the involvement of farmers‟ organizations.

8. The analysis carried out in this section draws upon the review of the interaction between IFAD and FOs during the formulation of IFAD Country Strategies (COSOP3 – Country Strategic Opportunity Programme) and the design of IFAD funded projects. The period under review is 2010-2011 during which 14 COSOPs and 74 projects were approved4. 9. The single out most important data emerging from the analysis is that the consultation with FOs is becoming the norm for the formulation of both COSOPs and projects. Since the beginning of the Farmers‟ Forum initiative in 2006 the share of COSOPs formulated without the participation of FOs has drecreased from a level of 14 per cent to zero per cent during the last bennium (2010/2011). The same trend can be observed for projects whereby the related number of those formulated without the involvement of FOs passed from a level of 23 and 30 per cent respectively for the periods 2006/07 and 2008/09 to a level of 7 per cent during the last biennium.

3

In most of its borrowing member states, IFAD engages on the basis of a Country Strategic Opportunities Programme (COSOP), which is discussed with partners and agreed upon with the government. Once reviewed by IFAD Executive Board, COSOPs define IFAD-supported operations in the country, including loan- funded investment projects, grant-funded projects and policy dialogue initiatives for a period of 4 to 5 years. 4 The response to the survey covered 13 COSOPs (93%) and 56 projects (76%)

10. The other interesting feature is that the involvement of FOs in the design of both COSOPs and projects is warrating specific modalities of involvement since in almost two-thirds of both COSOPs and projects samples, FOs are involved as special players (64 and 57 per cent for COSOPs and projects respectively see figure 1).

Box 1. Categories of partnerships: normal and special players The analysis of the partnership between IFAD and FOs is systematiclaly undertaken classifying the collaboration during the desing of either COSOPs or projects along the following categories: Special player: this category gathers all the modalities whereby FOs are recognized as a special stakeholder that requires distinctive, additional forms of involvement in the COSOP and projects formulation process, such as the organization of specific workshops for FOs, or FOs‟ full membership in CPMTs and in project design teams Simple player: this category includes the modalities whereby FOs were invited, among other IFAD stakeholders, to participate in the COSOP design process, but were not given a specific role in shaping the direction of the COSOP. Such modalities (which were sometimes employed in combination) include: participation in the COSOP validation workshop; bilateral meetings with the CPM or the COSOP and project formulation team; and participation in multi-stakeholder consultations; No participation: FOs not invited to participate in either COSOP or project design

Figure 1 – Evolution of frequency of FOs participation in COSOPs and projects formulation over the last three biennium (2006-2011) Data for COSOPs

Data for Projects

11. For example in the case of COSOPs, FOs become member of the Country Progrmame Management Teams (CPMT5), in more than half of the cases. Special workshops with FO were organised at national or local level in 43% of the cases. 12. In the case of COSOPs, their formulation in DR Congo, Mozambique (see box 2), Senegal and Liberia involved extensive consultation process at the field level. In Laos, despite the constraints imposed by the absence of organised civil society at national level, the COSOP was developed through extensive consultations with local farmers groups in 63 villages. IFAD played the role of neutral broker in negotiations between the FOs and the government, who accepted the strategic directions identified by farmers groups.

Box 2. The COSOP consultation process in Mozambique IFAD funded an extensive consultation process with fishers and farmers organizations at regional level, to ensure their direct involvement in the COSOP formulation. The process started with consultations with members of the Institute for the Development of Artisanal Fisheries (IDPPE) and the National Farmers Union (UNAC) at district level, who shared their concerns with IFAD following internal consultations. The outcome of these regional consultations were then discussed by the FOs‟ representatives at a national COSOP workshop. The positive influences have included: a better quality rural poverty analysis, improved targeting as well as a broad validation of the agreed strategic objectives. The active involvement of FOs in the COSOP process also led to increased awareness of partnership opportunities in IFAD-funded projects. Conversely, COSOP implementation proved to be challenging, as FOs had inadequate institutional and organizational capacities to undertake the implementation tasks foreseen in the COSOP.

13. For projects, the evolution of the modalities for FOs participation in the design process are particularly interesting as almost a quarter of those FOs involved in formulation were participating as members of design teams, Project development teams (PDT), CPMT 6 or Quality Enhacement Panels7. 14. In some cases, the FOs involved in the design phase were not those chosen to participate in implementation. In DR Congo, notably due the weak links between FOs at national and grassroots level. IFAD engaged in dialogue with the national COPACO (also strenghtened through the SFOAP grant programme, see chapter 2 ) during the design process, while urging them to work in partnership and complementarity with local-level FOs since the partnership developed during the implementation of projects rarely involves those consulted during design.

5

To facilitate the implementation of the country programme, IFAD sets up a Country Programme Management Team (CPMT). It is a resource group of stakeholders who participate in the entire country programme design and implementation, from COSOP formulation through the various stages of project and programme design, implementation and supervision. 6 To facilitate the implementation of the country programme, IFAD sets up a Country Programme Management Team (CPMT). It is a resource group of stakeholders who participate in the entire country programme design and implementation, from COSOP formulation through the various stages of project and programme design, implementation and supervision. 7 The Quality Enhancement Panel reviews project compliance with IFAD norms and standards to optimize the relevance, coherence, implementability and impact of project design.

15. In other cases, several FOs are involved in project design but not included in the Steering Committee. In Armenia for example, strong and influential FOs were consulted extensively in design, but they play no part in the project Steering Committee. Similarly, in the Philippines a number of local-level Indigenous People‟s Organizations were consulted in design and contributed to defining the project‟s targeting criteria, but they are not active members of the Steering Committee, as they are not adequately linked to a national-level representative body.

Box 3. The experience in Senegal and Togo – from a new engagement to a long standing partnerhsip Togo. After 15 years of absence, IFAD resumed its presence in Togo, basing the design of the new Agricultural Development Project (PADAT) on the National Programme for Agricultural Investment and Food Security (PNIASA) developed in the framework of CAADP / ECOWAP. The PNIASA already included a number of capacity building and institutional strengthening programs for FOs. Their involvement in the formulation process of the PADAT is key in: (a) validating requests for support; (b) implementing infrastructure works as contracting authorities; and (c) benefiting from project support to improve service provision to members. Following a mapping of FOs, IFAD decided to partner with the national-level CTOP which needs to expand its base, the network of Chambers of Agriculture (PNWER) and a number of regional commodity-based FOs. As part of partnership with other donors, discussions were held with the World Bank to seek harmonization with PASA and SWAp projects for which the Bank is involved in financing and include components supporting FOs. Senegal. The Matam Development Project in Senegal (PRODAM) tested an approach to empowering FOs based on rating their stage of organizational capacity and autonomy using a threepoint scale. The project tailored specific support initiatives to each stage, adopting a progressive capacity building path towards full autonomy and professionalism. This approach tested, validated and implemented by the PRODAM has produced tangible results in the field, where approximately 30% of the FOs supported had reached level 3 (full autonomy). On sectors such as rice and peanuts, FOs developed capacity to render services to their members. Beyond improving their internal structure, FOs were also able to independently build partnerships with external actors. Significant progress was also made to link grassroots-level FOs to local Consultative Frameworks of Producer Organizations (CLCOP), through which they FOs established a demand-driven Rural Services Fund (FSRRD), allocating resources to community-level initiatives, prioritized, planned and funded within the CLCOP. The establishment of frameworks helped strengthen synergy and coherence in the actions implemented in areas covered by different projects.

16. In Argentina the National Farmers Federation (Federación AgrariaArgentina, FAA) is not only participating in the design of IFAD projects, but it has been instrumental in shaping the direction of planned investment. Project Design Teams have included national government provincial government partners as well as FO members as national experts. 17. Additionally, the 2010/11 survey confirms that the involvement of FOs in both COSOPs’ and projects’ formulation is benefiting both the agendas of IFAD and FOs. For IFAD, the consultation with FOs results in improved strategic focus and better poverty understanding for the COSOPs while substancially influencing the institutional set up and the

definition of specific objectives of projects (see figure 2). In turn, FOs are benefiting from the involvement in the design processes especially in terms of gaining visibility with governments, linking with IFAD managers and networking with other partners.

Figure 2 – Areas of influence on project design from FOs involvement (2010-2011)

18. The impact of such increased quantity and quality of consultation with FOs on both COSOPs and projects is considerable: 

the number of COSOPs including at least one Strategic Objective to address FOs needs or to respond to their agenda has increased markedly. In the current biennium, 85% of COSOPs approved include such SOs, falling into two categories: (a) SOs aiming at ensuring FOs‟ access to services, productive inputs, technologies and markets for income generation (China, DRC, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Zambia); and (b) SOs aiming at strengthening FOs‟ capacities to improve participation in decision making for local economic development (Congo, Ivory Coast, DRC, Senegal). Box 4 provides some examples of the impact of increased COSOP consultation in IFAD country strategies.



the foreseen FOs participation of FOs in the implementation of projects has improved by more than 25 percentage points considering the past two periods of the surveys (2006-07 and 2008/09) and the last biennium (2010/11) reaching the level of 95 per cent. Nontheless, the modality of such foreseen involvement - albeit reaching two-thirds of the sample for the category „implementers or service providers‟ - has diminished considerably (from 26 per cent in 2008/09 to 9 per cent in 2010/11) in the assignment of full responsibility for the management of projects (sub)components. Box 5 provides some examples of involvement of FOs in IFAD projects either as beneficiaries of capacity development, as implementing partners or as service providers.

Box 4. Involvement of FOs in COSOPs design and impact in IFAD country strategies In Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Liberia, DR Congo and Benin, the COSOPs aim at strengthening FOs capacity development, to enable them to participate in local and national policy programming and decision making. In DR Congo, FOs‟ upstream involvement did not effectively translate into concrete FO needs identification in the COSOP. This was partly due to weak institutional capacities and a pronounced disconnect between national-level and grassroots-level FOs. Similarly, building the capacities of particularly grassroots-level FOs is a major objective under the new Benin COSOP. The National Platform of Agricultural Producer Organizations (PNOPPA-Benin) is strong and actively involved in negotiations for the definition of the National Investment Plan (Programme National d'Investissement Agricole – PNIA. At the local level however PNOPPA is still weak for supporting the engagement of IFAD projects with local farmers‟ groups.. The COSOP seeks to work on both FO levels, strengthening the links through – among others – a partnership with Agricord, represented in Benin by the French Farmers for International Development (AFDI). The COSOPs of Senegal and Niger focused instead in the active involvement of FO’s in the implementation of IFAD operations. In the new COSOP (2011-2015) for Senegal one of the two SOs directly concerns enhancing the role and sustainability of existing FOs, as a means of improving smallholders‟ access to rural services, appropriate technology and markets.

Box 5. Involvement of FOs in project design and impact in the articulation of project activities As direct beneficiaries of capacity /institutional development:In Rwanda, commodity-based Cooperative Unions rely on meagre funding from membership fees, have weak capacities to provide services to their members and poor levels of influence in provincial level policy processes. IFAD‟s projects KWAMP, PAPSTA and PRICE builds the capacities of such Unions, including the Rice Cooperatives, RCCF and FERWACOTHE and supports value chain development for coffee, sericulture, tea and horticulture. As implementing partners: In Ghana, CPMT members in the national platforms are involved in the implementation and supervision of support to their members, as well as in annual portfolio reviews and KM exercises. Members of the platform at the grassroots level are the project's clients, to whom CPMT Business development services are offered. In Yemen, producer's associations are involved, using a value chain development approach and are equipped with the essential tools to support small producers in accessing input and output markets. In Argentina, local-level FOs have been involved in project implementation as key engines of territorial development in their area. The project is mainly operated through FOs, which act simultaneously as implementing partners and beneficiary groups. FOs and IFAD co-financed local development plans and business plans, through the mechanism of matching grants. In Ecuador too, projects were co-financed with local governments and “juntas parroquiales” who implement projects. Senegal. The Agricultural Services and Producers Organization Program (PSAOP) in Senegal, a nationwide project – funded by the World Bank, IFAD and the government – aimed to enhance the access of small producers to services and sustainable and diversified agricultural innovations in order to increase agricultural productivity and enhance household food security. The implementation of one of the four components of PSAOP (Support to Producer Organisations) was entrusted to the association ASPRODEB created by the Senegalese FOs. USD 8.3 million were invested in strengthening the capacity of producer organizations at local, regional and national levels, advocating for smallholder farming and facilitating the latter‟s access to technical and economic services for sustainable production and for increased incomes and food security. As service providers: The Zambian National Farmers Organisation (ZNFU) has been a long-term partner of IFAD through their involvement in the SHEMP project, involved in the development of a Market Information System which was sustained after the project‟s completion. ZNFU is unique in the Southern Africa region, in that it effectively links large commercial farmers with smallholders, through collecting information on 14 commodities and providing members with information on interested buyers, prices and contact details. The development of the MIS was funded by IFAD and the contract was awarded without a procurement process but through prior identification (by SHEMP) of ZNFU as a very professional and effective Union with good potential for IFAD partnership. The Smallholder Agribusiness Promotion Programme (SAP) project is following the same approach of working only with existing institutions in view of supporting sustainability of project interventions and to avoid the creation of institutions for the sake of project activities. Under that project, IFAD would not directly support the institutional development of ZNFU as such, but rather, enter into partnership with ZNFU as service provider. AGRISEM in Guatemala is planned, through a MoU, to provide specialized technical assistance to other farmers groups in irrigation, management of pesticides, food safety and marketing aspects for exports. In the Rural Economic Competitiveness in the Northern Region of Honduras, the Caju Cooperative, which is a member of the project Steering Committee was contracted through MoU or competitive bidding, to support value chain development. In the RLEEP in Malawi, dialogue with FOs that are structured beyond the grassroots level – such as NASFAM and FUM - is mainly achieved through their involvement in project Steering Committees. NASFAM is considered as one of the most effective commercial-oriented smallholders‟ organisation in Southern Africa, capable of providing effective economic services to its members. As such, it does not receive direct support from IFAD but, in 2011, it was awarded a contract of USD 375,000 from RLEEP (through a competitive tender) to support seed multiplication through the provision of extension and marketing services, contributing to the project‟s objective of strengthening selected value chains (groundnuts) and improving the quality, production, and marketing along the chains through PPP. Of the total contract amount, USD 66,347 was co-financing from NASFAM itself and USD 4,660 is to be contributed by member beneficiaries.

2.

Direct financial support to FOs

Recommendations of the 2010 Farmer‟s Forum on direct support to farmers‟ organizations: •

Agree with IFAD that direct support to our organizations should be channelled primarily through our regional networks and federations for the sake of economies of scale and efficiency. However, direct support to national or local organizations should remain an option.



As support is expanded, IFAD also expects that farmers‟ organizations should conduct their own M&E of the benefits and impacts of such support for IFAD‟s target group that accrue within their own organizations, particularly in terms of economic empowerment.



In addition, there should be a more systematic approach to identifying synergies between direct support to farmers‟ organizations for capacity-building and their capacity to benefit from the larger projects supported by IFAD and governments. Synergies need to be identified between these two processes.

19 . IFAD‟s main financial instrument consists of loans to governments of its Member States. However, the Fund also provides “direct” financial support to FOs. This direct support can be provided through two modalities: either the FO is the direct recipient of the funds or it designates itself a recipient when it cannot be the formal recipient for reasons related to its institutional, administrative or legal status. The grant facility is IFAD‟s main instrument for direct financing of FOs‟ own projects, although direct financial support has also been provided through supplementary funds8, direct “institutional contracts” with FOs and demand-driven technical assistance. Support to FOs provided through loan-supported projects (which is by far the largest part) is not considered in this section as it goes through governments.

2.1 Direct support to FOs – implementation of regional grants approved in the previous biennium

20. Direct support through grant funding to FOs for capacity building has been reaching 80 national FOs in 60 countries during this biennium (including 36 national FOs in sub-Saharan Africa)9. Although the amount, modalities and purpose of this demand-led funding are very diverse from a region to the other, this is a un-precedent achievement for IFAD. Grant funding allow to support FOs, financially or with technical assistance, on the basis of their own objectives and programs. This is of particular importance to enable FOs to engage independently on policy dialogue, lobbying and advocacy or to conduct their own studies, research or consultation for the interest of the members. 21. Significant results have been achieved in these regard in a number of countries of sub-Saharan Africa (SFOAP10 program), Asia (MTCP11 program) and Latin America (COPROFAM and REAF programs). The ESFIM12 program operating in 10 countries in three regions also delivered its first

8

Supplementary funds are extra-budgetary resources provided by IFAD Member States for specific programmes or activities. See annex 1 10 Support to Farmers Organisations in Africa Program including regional grants to EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA and SACAU 11 Medium Term Cooperation Program with Farmers Organisations in Asia including regional grants to SEWA and FAO 12 Empowering Smallholder Farmers in Markets, grant initially to IFAP then transferred to AgriNatura 9

results in 2011. Direct grant funding also strengthen national FOs institutional and operational capacities, enabling them to become more effective partners for engagement in large investment projects, including as key implementation partners in agricultural and value chains development projects. A dozen of regional/global grants to FOs were implemented during the biennium. 22. In the majority of the cases the grantee was a regional FO network (EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU, COPROFAM, WINFA). In other cases it was a national organisation (SEWA for MTCP in South Asia), an international NGO (AgriCord), a research institution (Agrinatura implementing the ESFIM program after the bankruptcy of IFAP) or even an intergovernmental organisation (FAO for MTCP South-East Asia &China). The diverse institutional set-up of these grant programs depended primarily upon their geographical coverage, corresponding or not to the ones of FOs networks, and upon the division or integration of smallholder farmers movements in these networks. In South East Asia, the principle of inclusiveness of the Farmers‟ Forum together with a concern with efficiency on IFAD side, resulted in the choice of a third party as grant recipient, acting on behalf of the end recipient FOs. Although not fully in line with the principle of direct support, this approach contributed to the dialogue – and in some cases to alliances – between national FOs belonging to different international movements. 23. For IFAD, the systematic use of regional/global grants (instead of country grants) to support national FOs allowed for a considerable reduction of transaction cost per unit. In some cases, as for the grants under the SFOAP program, co-financed by IFAD and the European Commission, this approach strengthened both national FOs and their regional networks in a mutually reinforcing way. The risk with the regional grant approach is a limited integration of the engagement with the national FO within the country program that IFAD and the Government have agreed. This risk however can and should be addressed. 24. A number of these regional or global grants to FOs triggered by the Farmers Forum process already reached or will soon reach completion. Initial results and impacts of two of these programs, SFOAP and COPROFAM, are summarised below. 25. The Support to Farmers Organizations in Africa Programme (SFOAP), cofinanced by IFAD and the European Commission, is now at its third year of implementation. Overall, the

impacts of SFOAP support so far can be identified in the following key areas:

13



Increased management capacity: SFOAP significantly contributed to improve the professionalization of FOs at both regional and national level. The consolidation of FOs core functions such as professional financial and technical management, accountability towards their memberships, improved governance and transparency have all improved through financial support to FOs operational costs and technical backstopping by IFAD and RFOs to their members. Through modest financial contributions, SFOAP programme played a critical catalytic role by creating conducive institutional and managerial conditions for all Farmer Organisations (FOs) participating in the project to develop their activities. In addition, the support provided by SFOAP has been the first that has provided un-conditional support to FOs in Sub-Saharan Africa core functions enabling them to focus on their priority rather than responding to requests and demands coming from the donor community.



FOs as more effective players in African policy processes: The strengthened capacities of FOs are now resulting in a significant change in terms of RFO and NFOs representation at policy making forums and RFOs are increasingly present in policy initiatives at regional and continental level, such as the CAADP processes13. This has

EAFF is increasingly being recognized as a strong regional organization and was designated by COMESA as a signatory to the regional Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) compact and the EAFF President sits on the Partnership Committee of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) for CAADP. PROPAC was enabled to develop partnerships with regional integration bodies (i.e. regional

increased their recognition by the partners, and visibility in policy making processes as the respective governments are increasingly recognizing them as an important partner in the formulation of agricultural policies and programmes. 

Broadening alliances and partnerships: FOs‟ are more and more able to mobilize more external support and engage in public investment projects thanks to their increased visibility and negotiating skills.



FOs, knowledge management and communication. SFOAP enabled FOs to develop peer-to-peer support and to share knowledge and experience generated from country-level activities.



The first farmers continental platform: an innovative pan-African platform and network, the Pan-African Farmer Organization (PAFO), was established in October 2010. PAFO developed a clear mission statement and gained legal status and recognition as being the voice of African FOs.

26. The unique feature of the partnership with FOs in the MERCOSUR region of South America is the association of direct support to a regional network of FOs (COPROFAM) with support to a formal platform of policy dialogue between FOs and the Governments (REAF) in the context of a regional integration process, with full support and engagement from the Government themselves. Through its support to COPROFAM, IFAD has enhanced the capacity of Farmers‟ Organizations to promote their interests in national and regional policy and advocacy fora. In parallel, support to the operation of REAF has strengthened this institutional platform, enabling the voices of small family farmers to be channeled to the political agenda of MERCOSUR countries and their policy making processes. 14 IFAD‟s cooperation with Farmers‟ Organizations in the MERCOSUR has been instrumental in calling attention to the specific needs of family farming and rural populations in the region. The synergies and complementarities fostered between REAF and COPROFAM has undoubtedly helped to strengthen this cause. The experience has become a model for other countries – including beyond Latin America – to replicate and/or scale up. Some positive impacts are outlined below: 

Improved policy dialogue has been observed in the MERCOSUR as well as at national level in the four active member countries. The introduction of family farming concerns in the political agenda was facilitated and the MERCOSUR countries capacity to address them through policy responses and legal reforms was increased. The renewed commitment at regional level has translated into a variety of reforms and concrete policy actions and at the national level. Special or differentiated policies for family farming have been formulated and institutionalized in Argentina and Paraguay. A directorate for rural development was created within the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Uruguay. In order to democratize the resource allocation process at local level, round-tables of dialogue15 were established, including with support from an IFAD-financed project. These bodies periodically gather farmer unions‟ representatives, family farmers, extensionists and representatives of local authorities, to jointly draft proposals and prepare rural development plans, to be issued by the Ministry of Livestock. In Argentina, the recognition of family farming as a crucial component of the rural economy turned it into one of the government

economic and monetary unions CEEAC and CEMAC, administrative council of CORAF and PRASAC). Through the strengthened capacity of SACAU secretariat, the RFO is becoming an important partner for consultation in the region, representing farmers at regional and continental forums organized by relevant bodies such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the CAADP, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union (AU) and the Forum for African Agriculture Research (FARA). Similarly, ROPPA and its members are increasingly recognised as smallholder representatives in policy processes, and they are members of various Task Forces and consultative bodies on sector policies. 14 15

Source: http://www.reafmercosul.org/reaf/sobre/historico Source: http://www.forodelasmesasdedesarrolloruraldecanelones.org/

priorities. The national FO FAA (Federacion Agraria Argentina) directly benefited from being a member of COPROFAM, accessing training courses and study tours. This enabled FAA to engage in national policy dialogue – as mentioned in the previous point- as well as in the design of IFAD- funded projects, like the PRODERI. Together with other FOs‟ representatives FAA leaders assessed the viability of project mechanisms and development proposals and played a key role in shaping IFAD investment priorities. Also in Brazil and Bolivia Local Farmers‟ Organizations -member of COPROFAM- count on enhanced capacity, which has enabled them to take part in the design and implementation of IFAD projects.

16

17 18



There is ample evidence to sustain that increased policy dialogue has translated into national level results in terms of empowerment of smallholder farmers: Political and legal recognition has resulted from increased attention to the importance of family farming in the regional economy. Registers of family farmers were introduced in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay where they were not previously in place. REAF has contributed to the policy debate on land tenure and use in Argentina as well as the trade facilitation instruments introduced for family farm products in the region. In Chile the Grant helped strengthen the engagement of the national umbrella organization Movimiento Unitario Campesino y Etnias de Chile (MUSECH) with the government, through organizing several international events. Paraguay and Argentina have set up regulatory frameworks for insurance schemes for small farmers. In Uruguay, a special programme for rural employees and family producers – also funded by IFAD16 - provides facilitated access to credit and support for a fair process in values chain inclusion. Institutional market schemes have been developed to supply food produced in family farms to schools and hospitals. Based on the Brazilian model, REAF put forward proposals to expand similar schemes to other countries. IFAD is further supporting FOs - as broker or facilitator - to take advantage of a large range of market opportunities that are arising as a result of the attention shift towards family farming and favorable price and market conditions for food producers.



Greater involvement of women and youth in decision-making processes and access to project benefits. Thematic groups on women and youth were created within REAF, as a follow up to a Farmers Forum recommendation, triggering policy debate on issues of gender and age-based equality in rural development, and leading to initiatives taken up at the national level. MERCOSUR Mujeres is the specialized committee addressing issues of rural development and women in family farming. The government of Paraguay has allocated USD 1 million of its 2012 national budget to support women‟s access to rural finance services. 17 REAF Joven is a specialized group in MERCOSUR that advocates for the integration of rural youth considerations in rural development policies. The young population of rural areas in the region has been publically recognized as a driving force of rural development, affected by rural unemployment and rural-urban migration. In the framework of the last IFAD grant, REAF has actively worked to increase attention to the particular needs of rural youth in public policy design, through enhancing awareness and fostering dialogue across its members. Meanwhile, capacity development for rural youth organizations has been provided to enable their active participation in the dialogue that concerns them.18Moreover, all IFAD-financed projects in the MERCOSUR region dedicate special attention to youth through capacity building, technical assistance and financing of business plans.

Source: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/URural/inicio.html

http://www.mercosurmujeres.org/es/boletin-bo31 www.Reafjoven.ar.com

2.2 Direct support to FOs - new initiatives launched during 2010/11 27. Compared to the previous biennium, the number and total amount of new grant funded programs in direct support to FOs was reduced from the record level of USD 12 milllion during 2008/09 to a level of USD 8.5 million for 2010/11. (see figure 3).

28. The main reason for such decrease in new engagements in 2010-2011 is obviously related to the simultaneous approval of large regional programs in all regions during the previous biennium. As most regional FOs networks in Africa, Asia and Latin America were implementing these programs (in particular SFOAP in Africa, MTCP in Asia and COPROFAM in South America) reaching national FOs in more than 60 countries, IFAD and FOs‟ attention was given to implementation and supervision rather than to the design of new programs. 29. Furthermore the use of small country grants to support single national FOs (as in 20062007) almost disapeared, in line with the regional program approach requested by FOs and approved during the previous biennium.

Figure 3 – Evolution of direct financial support to FOs (amount USD million per biennium)

Figure 4 – Direct financial support to FOs - # of grants and average amount per grant

30. Figure 4 illustrates the trends towards fewer and larger, more strategic, grant programs with FOs over the last eight years. 31. Amongst the 10 new grants approved during the last biennium – one of it was related to the follow up on the specific request arising from the 2010 global meeting of the Farmers‟ Forum on investing in young farmers. The grant was approved in November 2010 and provided to the International Movement of Catholic Agricultural and Rural Youth (MIJARC) to map young farmer organizations, in collaboration with FAO. The grant aims to find out the reality of rural young people by mapping their own farmer organizations at national, regional and global level, or those in which young people are represented. It also act as a platform for the rural youth to express their views and explain their challenges and aspirations through a survey addressed specifically to them. Under the grant support, regional consultations involving young rural women and men were held in Africa, Asia and Latin America for the youth to share their experiences and indicate the support they need to become successful farmers and entrepreneurs. The findings and recommendations emerging from this process will be presented at a special session for young farmers during the IFAD‟s Farmers‟ Forum in February 2012 in IFAD HQ. The results of this initiative are expected to inform the formulation of successful policies and influence the discussions at institutional level towards a youth mainstreaming approach applied to all agricultural and rural development programmes. 32. Two other global initiatives of particular interest initiated during the last two years were in partnership with Agricord. The first one “Capacity-building for Farmers' Organizations involved in IFAD Country Programmes” was a 1.55 million grant with 0.45 cofinancing from AgriCord to support FOs in their engagement with IFAD at country level, in COSOP formulation and project design and implementation. This is the first attempt to respond to the 2010 FAFO recommendation for a demand led facility to support FOs in partnering in IFAD operations. The program started implementation in sub-Saharan African countries (Bénin, Burundi, Guinée, Mali and Niger) and in CEN countries (Armenia, Bosnia and Moldova). The second initiative - Supporting inclusive planning of country projects financed by the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP) – is an innovative parnership between IFAD, Agricord and GAFSP 19 civil society members of the Steering Committee from the South (CSO South/GAFSP) to support the involvement of national FOs in the formulation of GAFSP supported projects. The involvement of Agricord followed a request from CSO South members of the GAFSP Steering Committees to IFAD. So far, the actviities focused on scoping missions In Sierra Leone, togo, ethiopia, Rwanda, Liberia, and Cambodia from CSO South/GAFSP members to raise the awareness amongst national FOs about the GAFSP process and to kick start the naitonal consultation amongst FOs for an effective involvement of FOs in the design process of GAFSP-supported projects. The scoping mission will then be followed by small grant provided by Agricord to national FOs to support activities related to FOs full participation in the design of GAFSP-supported projects.

19

The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) is a multilateral mechanism to assist in the implementation of pledges made by the G8++ at the L‟Aquila Summit in July 2009 and was set up in response to a request from the G20 in Pittsburgh in September 2009. The objective is to address the underfunding of country and regional agriculture and food security strategic investment plans already being developed by countries in consultation with donors and other stakeholders at the country-level. More information on the GAFSP is available at http://www.gafspfund.org.

33. At national level, the most important initiative was launched in Senegal as part of the EU Food Facility (EU/FF) implemented by IFAD in West Africa (EU/FF programme is a 20 million euro grant allocated to IFAD in 2010 in West Africa). Euro 3.6 M were allocated to Senegal for the multiplication of certified seeds and support to cooperatives and farmers organisations in areas of agricultural technologies as well as management and accounting for their cooperatives. Of this funding, ASPRODEB – the agri-agency of the National FOs CNCR in Senegal - has implemented a EURO 2.7 million AWBP between December 2010 and December 2011. In this timeframe, ASPRODEB has created 19 new cooperatives for farming certified groundnut seeds and has provided support to 29 cooperatives overall. Thanks to their intervention, not only has farmer awareness in formulating needs increased, but also yields have increased. Membership in many cooperatives has also increased significantly, in some cases this has gone from 68 members in 2008 to 685 in 2011.

3. Women in agriculture and Farmers’ Organizations Recommendations of the 2010 Farmer‟s Forum on Women in Agriculture and Farmers‟ organizations: •

continue and increase efforts to enable women to increase their access to and control over productive assets including land and water;



support the development and provision of financial services suitable to agriculture, and to enable women‟s incomes to grow;



earmark funds, wherever feasible, for women in IFAD-funded programmes as an affirmative action measure – for example, under community development funds and in training – in addition to mainstreaming gender equality concerns throughout projects and programmes;



use grant funding for women‟s capacity-building – including child care facilities where needed – when it is not possible to finance such activities through a loan;



seek to negotiate for joint titling – where IFAD-funded programmes support access to land and other kinds of property – supported with legal advisory services to enable women to defend their rights;



give attention to the specific situation and needs of young women, in the context of a much-needed focus on rural youth.

In the context of IFAD’s engagement with farmers’ organizations, we recommend that IFAD: •

open spaces for women farmer leaders to participate in country and global policy processes, and also in IFAD country strategy consultations;



establish quotas for women in the design of the projects and programmes that work with farmers‟ organizations (where possible, not less than 30 per cent, with a view to reaching 50 per cent over time), provide incentives for producer organizations to achieve the targets, and monitor their implementation;



invest more grant resources in increasing the capacity of farmers‟ organizations to address gender issues and empower women, and to strengthen women‟s leadership – where possible channelling funds directly to women‟s structures within organizations;

34. The recommendations of the 2010 Farmer‟s Forum on Women in Agriculture and Farmers‟ Organizations, contributed to shaping the main goal and strategic objectives of the IFAD Policy on Gender Equality and Women‟s Empowerment, approved by IFAD Executive Board on December 2011.

35. The goal of the policy is to enhance the sustainability and deepen the impact of IFADsupported development initiatives. The purpose is to improve IFAD‟s impact on gender equality and strengthen women‟s empowerment in poor rural areas. This will be achieved through three strategic objectives: 

Strategic objective 1 (SO1): Promote economic empowerment to enable rural women and men to have equal opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, profitable economic activities.



Strategic objective 2 (SO2): Enable women and men to have equal voice and influence in rural institutions.



Strategic objective 3 (SO3): Achieve a more equitable balance in workloads and in the sharing of economic and social benefits between women and men.

36. The recommendations of the 2010 Farmers‟ Forum on Women in Agriculture and Farmers‟ Organizations have been addressed through several interventions, taking into consideration each stage of the project cycle. Support to IFAD regular activities was enhanced by the presence of a gender specialist on design and supervision missions. Moreover, a checklist for mainstreaming gender equality in IFAD-funded operations was developed to guide the formulation of a project‟s gender strategy and monitor its implementation. The specific IFAD responses, for the biennium 2010-2011, to each of the FAFO 2010 recommendations are included in Appendix 2.Table 2 below presents a synthesis of how the 2010 recommendations have been taken into account. 37. A brief summary of the activities being promoted over the last two years in terms on gender mainstraming and on women in agriculture and FOs are presented below. Supporting women’s economic empowerment 38. Under SO1 of the newly approved IFAD Policy on Gender Equality and Women‟s Empowerment, IFAD seeks to promote economic empowerment to enable rural women and men to have equal opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, profitable economic activities. To achieve this, legal reforms were supported to enable women to increase their access to and control over productive assets, including land and water. 39. More concretely, IFAD: 

Supported the enforcement of existing legislation, through training of parajurists on subjects such as women‟s rights, inheritance rights and conflict resolution in Burundi, Liberia, Malawi and Senegal. Legal advisory services were then provided to enable women to defend their rights;



Assisted women in obtaining identity documents, which are a prerequisite for accessing government services, opening bank accounts, and benefiting from other commercial services, such as mobile telephone use;

 

Supported the formalization of women groups (like fisher mongers in Benin) Lobbied and advocated for the increase in land ownership and inheritance rights (in Gambia, Burundi)

40. In terms of provision of capacity development for women, training in literacy (Benin, Yemen), management and accounting (Benin), were offered to enable women to successfully take advantage of financial service opportunities. 41. About 700,000 people (61% women) were trained in business entrepreneurship, which demonstrates the enormous and increasing contribution of women-run micro and small enterprises to the rural economy. Continued efforts are required to improve women‟s participation in agricultural training on crop production, as women there still represent around one third of trainees under IFAD-supported projects. 42. Efforts to increase women‟s access to financial services have been actively supported. Out of 2.7 million active borrowers of rural financial services provided by IFAD, women represented 57%. The proportion of female voluntary savers supported under IFAD-funded projects was 53% (Yemen, Mozambique). Better access to rural financial services have increased women‟s incomes, strengthened their livelihood security and resilience to food insecurity, as well as earned them respect in the eyes of their neighbours and opening doors to positions of responsibility in their communities. 43. IFAD has promoted the integration of women into value chains and agricultural production and processing (Guatemala, Bangladesh), seeking to ensure equal and shared involvement of both men and women in discussions within farmers‟ associations. IFAD has also promoted the fair distribution of resources and specific services to women, including literacy and training on accounting, group management and technical skills. This resulted in higher incomes and improved nutrition in the household and contributed to enhancing children‟s access to education. Enhancing women’s voice in dialogue and decision-making 44. SO 2 of IFAD‟s Policy on Gender Equality and Women‟s Empowerment aims to enable women and men to have equal voice and influence in rural institutions. In this area, IFAD is supporting women in community-development projects, through the implementation of earmarked funds and quotas, as they receive most of the training in community management topics (67% in 2010). Several initiatives have been launched to foster women‟s leadership and increase their relevance in decision making within their communities, governments and other local, national, regional and international forums (India). 45. More specifically: 

Training of trainers programmes in women‟s leadership at grassroots level were rolled out in selected locations. Media and advocacy work on the importance of women‟s role and leadership in farmer organisations was also carried out (Nepal, Philippines, Senegal and Madagascar)



Open spaces for women farmer leaders were created to support their participation in country and global policy processes, as well as in IFAD country strategy consultations (Nepal, Philippines, Senegal and Madagascar)



Quotas for women were established in the design of the projects and programmes that work with farmers‟ organizations. This provided incentives for producer organizations to increase women‟s involvement. In a large number of cases, efforts lead to FOs - particularly in Latin America – evolving into gender-balanced institutions, with the presence of dynamic female members as well as male leaders, committed to gender equality.

Table 2 Women in Agriculture and Farmers’ Organizations: Recommendations of the 2010 Farmer’s Forum to IFAD Recommendations

Outcomes and results

i. Continue and increase efforts to enable women to increase their access to and control over productive assets including land and water ii. Support the development and provision of financial services suitable to agriculture, and to enable women‟s incomes to grow

Gender-disaggregated quantitative data in this area are only available at the project level. Women represent 57 percent of active borrowers and 53 percent of voluntary savers supported under IFADfunded projects (ARRI 2010). Data are only available at the project

iii. Seek to negotiate for joint titling – where IFAD-funded programmes support access to land and other kinds of property – supported with legal advisory services to enable women to defend their rights iv. Open spaces for women farmer leaders to participate in country and global policy processes, and also in IFAD country strategy consultations v. Establish quotas for women in the design of the projects and programmes that work with farmers‟ organizations (where possible, not less than 30 per cent, with a view to reaching 50 per cent over time), provide incentives for producer organizations to achieve the targets, and monitor their implementation vi. Use grant funding for women‟s capacitybuilding – including child care facilities where needed – when it is not possible to finance such activities through a loan

vii. Invest more grant resources in increasing the capacity of farmers‟ organizations to address gender issues and empower women, and to strengthen women‟s leadership – where possible channeling funds directly to women‟s structures within organizations viii. Involve women leaders of farmers‟ organizations in the supervision and monitoring of development programmes ix. Earmark funds, wherever feasible, for women in IFAD-funded programmes as an affirmative action measure – for example, under community development funds and in training – in addition to mainstreaming gender equality concerns throughout projects and programmes

x. Give attention to the specific situation and needs of young women, in the context of a much-needed focus on rural youth.

Global Gathering of Women Pastoralists

Related Strategic Objective (SO) SO 1: economic empower ment

Related issues from the gender check list

SO 2: equal voice

none

Data are only available at the project level.

The project design report articulates – or the project implements – actions which aim to expand women‟s economic empowerment through access to and control over fundamental assets

Ensuring and supporting women‟s active participation in project-related decision-making bodies and committees;

Data are only available at the project level.

SO 3: equitable balance

Rural Women‟s Leadership Programme covering Nepal, Philippines, Senegal and Madagasca

No indication

The project design report articulates – or the project implements – actions which aim to: Improve women‟s knowledge and well-being and ease their workloads by facilitating their access to basic rural services and infrastructure

No indication Women represent 67 percent of the people trained in community management topics (ARRI 2010).

Given than this is a relatively new topic for IFAD, data are not available yet.

No indication

Ensuring allocation of adequate resources to implement the gender strategy) and issue 3.4 (Ensuring direct project/programme outreach to women, for example through appropriate numbers and qualification of field staff, especially where women‟s mobility is limited)

APPENDIX 1

MAPPING COUNTRY-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN IFAD AND FARMERS ORGANISATIONS IN 2010-2011 The tables below, one per regional division of IFAD, summarize the main country level partnerships, collaborations or simple consultations between IFAD and Farmers‟ and Rural Producers Organisations (FOs)20 during the biennium 2010-2011. These partnerships are classified in four categories: i) Direct support to national FOs through grants, ii) FOs involvement in the implementation of on-going projects during the biennium 2010-2011 (project approved between in 2006-2009), iii) FOs involvement in the design of new projects approved during the biennium, and iv) FOs involvement in the formulation of new Country Strategies (COSOP) approved during the biennium. The tables include the 91 countries in which at least one of the four activities (grant funding to FOs, implementation of loan funded projects approved between 2006 and 2009, design of new loan projects, COSOP formulation) have been conducted during the period. For each category the names/acronyms of the FOs involved are reported 21. The tables also includes the acronyms of all the 81 national FOs (from 60 of the 91 countries considered) that attended the global meeting of the Farmers Forum in 2010 and/or 2012 22. This considerable attendance to the FAFO every other year is a unique opportunity to address together the issues mentioned above and to pursue in all regions the development of a strategic partnership with smallholder farmers and rural producers organisations.

20

In the context of the Farmers‟ Forum, Farmers and Rural Producers Organisations (FOs) are defined as membership-based organizations of smallholders, family farmers and rural producers, including pastoralists, artisanal fishers, landless people and indigenous people, that are structured beyond the grassroots or community level, at local, national or global levels.. 21 Information regarding second to fourth categories of partnerships come from the CPM survey conducted in October-November 2011. Information regarding the first category of partnership (grant funding to national FOs, mostly through regional/global grants) come from the grants progress/completion reports. 22

For 2012 the organisations are those invited to the FAFO meeting

WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA Direct support to National/Reg. FOs (Grants) Country

National FOs

Programs of direct support

Amount planned20102011

FOs involvement in implementation of ongoing projects (approved in 20062009)

FOs involvement in the design of new projects (2010-2011)

FOs Involvement in new COSOP (2010-2011)

West Africa (regional FO partner: ROPPA) Benin

FOs participating in global meeting of the Farmers Forum in 2010 and/or 2012

ROPPA 2010 + 2012

PNOPPA

SFOAP ROPPA

50 800

FUPRO

Agricord

NA

ESFIM

NA

Burkina Faso

CPF

SFOAP ROPPA

59 900

Gambia

NACOFAG

SFOAP ROPPA

56 000

Ghana

FONG

SFOAP ROPPA

48 700

PNOPPA

CPF + UGV

PNOPPA 2012

CPF 2010 NACOFAG 2010

No

FONG + NFAWO

FONG 2010 +2012 SYFN 2012

Guinea

CNOP-G

SFOAP ROPPA Agricord

51 200

CNOP-G + local FOs

NA

Guinea Bissau

QCOPGB

SFOAP ROPPA

46 600

Cote d’Ivoire

ANOPACI

SFOAP ROPPA

52 100

ANOPACI + ANARACI

Liberia Mali

CNOP-M

SFOAP ROPPA Agricord

55 500

PFP-N

SFOAP ROPPA Agricord

ANOPACI + ANARACI

ANOPACI, ANARACI

Commodity Org. + Coop

National Farmers Union

Local FOs

CNOP–M + APCAM

UAGPO + GNAM + GNAP

Local FOs

Local FOs

RECA + ARED + FUMA

CNOP-M 2010 +2012

NA

Mauritania Niger

CNOP-G 2012

45 500 NA

FMA 2012 Chambres d’Agri. 2012 PFP-N 2012

27

Nigeria Senegal

CNCR

SFOAP ROPPA

48 500

CNCR + Local CAA

CNCR + local CAA

AFAN

USMEFAN 2010

CNCR

FENAGIE 2010 CNCR 2012

Sierra Leone

NAFSL

SFOAP ROPPA

53 800

NAFSL + Chamber of Agriculture

Togo

CTOP

SFOAP ROPPA

55 500

CTOP, RENOP, Commodity org, local FOs

NAFSL, Chamber of Agr.

CTOP 2012

Central Africa (regional FO partner: PROPAC)

PROPAC 2010+2012

Cameroun

CNOP-CAM

SFOAP PROPAC

97 500

PLANOPAC, CNOP-CAM, local FOs

PLANOPAC, local FOs

Chad

CNCPRT

SFOAP PROPAC

86 400

CNCPRT

Central Afr.Rep.

CNOP CAF

SFOAP PROPAC

73 900

CNOP CAF + Local Fos

Congo

CNOP Congo

SFOAP PROPAC

67 800

Equat. Guinea

FENOCGE

SFOAP PROPAC

40 500

DR Congo

COPACO

SFOAP PROPAC

80 000

FOPAC

SFOAP EAFF

83 000

Gabon

CNOP Gabon

SFOAP PROPAC

64 400

Sao Tome

FENAPA STP

SFOAP PROPAC

48 400

CNOP-CAM 2010 + 2012 FNP 2012 PNP CA 2012

CNOP + local GIEC

CNOP-Congo 2010 +2012

COPACO

COPACO 2010 + 2012

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA Direct support to National/Reg FOs (Grants) National FO

Programs of direct support

Involvement in implementation of ongoing projects (designed in 20062009)

Amount planned

Involvement in the design of new projects (20102011)

Involvement in new COSOP (2010-2011)

FOs participating in global meeting of the Farmers Forum in 2010 and/or 2012

Country 2012-2011 Eastern Africa (regional FO partner: EAFF) Burundi

CAPAD

SFOAP EAFF Agricord

EAFF 2010+ 2012 83 600

SFOAP PROPAC

42 800

Ethiopia

OCFCU

SFOAP EAFF

73 000

Eritrea

NCEW

SFOAP EAFF

0

Kenya

KENFAP

SFOAP EAFF

83 600

Rwanda

INGABO

SFOAP EAFF

IMBARAGA

SFOAP EAFF

Uganda

no KENFAP + Local FOs

KENFAP

83 600

Local Coop

Commodity org: FERWACOTHE + Feder Coffee Coop, Silk Farm Fed.

No MVIWATA

SFOAP EAFF

ACT

SFOAP SACAU

UNFFE

SFOAP EAFF ESFIM

KENFAP 2010+2012

81 200

RCCF 2012

SSAP 2012

Local FOs

MWIWATA + Chambers of Ag. + ACT + TFA + local Coop

Local FOs

UNFFE+ Local FOs + USOPA + KOPGT

MVIWATA 2010

110 600 83 600

UNFFE 2010

NA

Southern Africa (regional FO partner: SACAU) Botswana

CAPAD 2012

NA

South Sudan Tanzania

CAPAD

NA

CNOP Burundi

ESFIM

CCDC and local FOs

SACAU 2010 + 2012 no

Comoros

No

Lesotho

LENAFU

SFOAP SACAU

Malawi

NASFAM

ESFIM

126 600

NA

LENAFU + commodity organizations NASFAM

LENAFU 2012

NASFAM + FUM

NASFAM 2010 FUM 2012

Madagascar

CPM

SFOAP SACAU ESFIM

110 600

FIFAT + SOA + CPM + FEKRITAMA + Local WUAs + Chambers of Ag.

Chambres d’Agri. 2010

NA

CPM 2012

Mozambique Seychelles

SeyFA

SFOAP SACAU

110 600

Swaziland

SNAU

SFOAP SACAU

110 600

Zambia

CPM + FIFATA + SOA + all other apex + Local FOs

ZNFU + Commodity FOs + local FOs and Coop

Local Fishers Associations

UNAC

UNAC 2010 + 2012

ZNFU and local FOs

ZNFU

ZNFU 2012

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Direct support to National/Reg. FOs (Grants) National FOs Country

Programs of direct support

FOs involvement in implementation of ongoing projects (designed in 2006-2009)

Amount planned20102011

FOs involvement in the design of new projects (2010-2011)

FOs Involvement in new COSOP (2010-2011)

FOs Participating in global meeting of the Farmers Forum in 2010 and/or 2012

South and Central Asia (no regional FO partner, SEWA as proxy for regional grant) Bangladesh

no

Buthan

no

India

SEWA

MTCP SEWA

FFA

ESFIM

175 500

ANPFa

MTCP SEWA

no

SEWA

0

Maldives Nepal

No

88 500

SEWA 2010 BKU 2012

Islands Cooperatives

MFAA 2010

Chambers of Com + Local FOs

ANPFa 2010 YPF 2012

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

Local Fishers org and Community org MONLAR

MTCP SEWA

74 000

Local Fos/CBOs

Tbc 2012

Local Fos

MONLAR 2010 +2012 NAFSO 2010+2012

Tajikistan

no IFAP-Asia 2010, AFA, LVC-Asia 2010 & 2012

East & South-East Asia (3 regional FO partners: AFA, LVC and ex IFAP-Asia, FAO as proxy for regional grant )

Cambodia

CFAP

MTCP FAORAP

98 000

China

(Gov.)

MTCP FAORAP

98 000

FNN 2010 +2012 Local Tea Farmers Coop +Local Fishery Associations + Poultry Coop

Local Coop. (Tea and Bee products)and Farmers Blocks

Indonesia

API

MTCP FAORAP

98 000

Local groups

API 2010 +2012

SPI

SPI 2010 +2012

WAMTI Laos

(Gov.)

WAMTI 2012 MTCP FAORAP

71 000

Informal groups

Mongolia Myanmar

(Gov)

MTCP FAORAP

0 National Coffee Corp. and Cocoa Board

PAKISAMA

MTCP FAORAP

FFF

ESFIM

98 000

Local WUAs, IPOs and National CommissionIPs

FFF 2010

NA

PAKISAMA 2010 +2012

Solomon Isl

Island Farmers Groups

Timor leste

Local Farmers Groups+Coop

Vietnam

Local Farmers Groups

no

Papua New Guinea Philippines

Local Farmers Groups

VNFU

MTCP FAORAP

98 000

Provincial FUs + Women Unions

VNFU + Provincial FUs

Tbc 2012 VNFU 2012

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Direct support to National/Regional FOs (Grants) National FO Country

Programs of direct support

Amount Planned

Involvement in implementation of ongoing projects (designed in 2006-2009)

Involvement in the design of new projects (2010-2011)

Involvement in new COSOP (2010-2011)

FOs Participating in global meeting of the Farmers Forum in 2010 and/or 2012

2010-2011 South America (main regional FO partner: COPROFAM, support to LVC South America) South America

Argentina

TERRA LIVRE (LVC South America)

Training LVC peasant leaders

FAA

COPROFAM

COPROFAM 2010 +2012

124 000 Comp.9/2010 Local FOs

FAA + local FOS

FAA 2010 +212 APENOC 2010 MNCI 2012

Total COPROFAM Bolivia

CIOEC

FUPOCH and other local FOs Chuquisaca and Yamparaez

COPROFAM Grant:

CIOEC 2010 +2012

ESFIM 416 000 Brazil

CONTAG

FTR Sergipe

COPROFAM

CONTAG 2010 +2012

ongoing Chile

MUCECH,Vozd elCa

COPROFAM

Paraguay

ONAC, UAN

COPROFAM

Peru

CCP

COPROFAM

JNC

ESFIM

CNFR, IPL, AMRU,

COPROFAM

Uruguay

MUCECH 2010 +2012

No

COPROFAM JUV. 2012 APAE, APAA 2010 JNC 2010, ANPE 2012

ESFIM CAF Colombia

Local FOs

FENSUAGRO 2012 ASOPECAM 2012

Ecuador

CANE, FECONA,FECAE, FEDARPOM,COPCAVIC,…

Venezuela

No

APROCANE, UNORCAC, UCASAJ, FUNORSAL,…

FENACLE 2010

Central America & Caribbean (no regional FO partner except WINFA in East Caribbean, …as Proxy in CA for regional grant) Dominican Rep.

FEDERACRES, ..

CONAMUCA 2010 CONCAFE 2012

Haiti

Local WUAs

Mexico

Community Forestry Orgs

El Salvador

COACES,CON FRAS.

PDRR

Guatemala

CONIC,CNOC, …

PDRR

MNC,UNAG,UP A..

PDRR

Local FOs

CCNIS

ACPAFRUNAN 2012

Total CIDH

Costa Rica

AGRISEM and local FOs

AGRISEM 2010

Local FOs

COCOCH 2010

800 000 Completed 6/2010

ESFIM CMC Honduras

UTC, ACAN,…

Local FOs

PDRR

CNTC 2012 Nicaragua

UNAG, UNAPA…

UNAG

PDRR

Local FOs, Coop

UNAG 2010 + 2012 ATC 2012

Dominica

WINFA

WINFA

Grenada

WINFA

WINFA

Total WINFA

St Lucia

WINFA

WINFA

193 600

St Vincent

WINFA

WINFA

WINFA 2010 + 2012

NEAR EAST, NORTH AFRICA AND CEN COUNTRIES Direct support to National/Reg. FOs (Grants) National FOs Country

Programs of direct support

Amount planned 20102011

Involvement in implementation of ongoing projects (designed in 2006-2009)

Involvement in the design of new projects (2010-2011)

Involvement in new COSOP (2010-2011)

FOs Participating in the global meeting of the Farmers Forum in 2010 and/or 2012

Near East and North Africa (No regional FO partner) Egypt

Union of Farmers,local WUA

Jordan

Ag Credit Org 2012 JFU 2010

Morocco

UMA 2012

Sudan

Syria

FUS + Gum Arabic Producers Ass.+ Local FUs or Pastoralists Unions

Farmers Unions of North and South Kordofan and Sinnar State

General Union of Farmers

General Union of Farmers + Chambers of Agriculture

Tunisia

Pastor. Union NK 2012 Women’s Union 2012

UTAP 2010 UMAGRI 2012

Turquey

Local commodity org.

Yemen

Local FOs

FCU (Yemen Fishers’ Coop Union) + Local FOs + ACU + Coffee Association

FCU 2012

Eastern Europe and CIS (No regional FO partner, AgriCord as proxy for regional grant) Albania

Chesnut association, Forest usage and protect. Assoc.

Armenia

FAA-ULE

AgriCord

Total

FAA-ULE

Bosnia and Her.

SPUSK

Agricord

750 000

Local FOs

Local FOs

Moldova

NFFM

Agricord

On going

NFFM

NFFM + FracFruit

FAA 2010 + 2012 APIMED 2012 NFFM 2012

Azerbaijan Georgia

NFA+NFWUA No

37

Appendix 2

Response to recommendations of the 2010 Farmer’s Forum to IFAD on Women in Agriculture and Farmers’ Organizations Continue and increase efforts to enable women to increase their access to and control over productive assets including land and water Gender Policy and checklist Issue addressed under the Strategic Objective 1 (SO1) (i.e. Economic empowerment) of the Gender Policy and also in issue n. 2 of the gender checklist (The project design report articulates – or the project implements – actions which aim to: Expand women‟s economic empowerment through access to and control over fundamental assets) Outcomes and results Gender-disaggregated quantitative data in this area are only available at the project level. Recent experiences The IFAD-supported Rural Development Programme for Las Verapaces, Guatemala (2001 – 2011) promoted value chain enhancement for a variety of crops (vegetables, spices, coffee and cocoa) through the implementation of a leading-edge and wellmanaged gender strategy. It financed investments to enhance the value of farm products, including the facilitation of meetings and negotiations between smallholders and buyers at various levels of the value chain, building capacity for grading and sorting, and providing branding and marketing support. The approach was gendersensitive, ensuring that discussions within farmers‟ associations involved women alongside men, and that work and resources were fairly distributed among them. The programme offered other specific services to women, including literacy and training on accounting, group management and technical skills. It assisted women in obtaining identity documents, which are a prerequisite for accessing government services, opening bank accounts, and benefiting from other commercial services such as mobile telephone use. When women gathered for training or literacy, they were also provided with reproductive health information and services. The employment of a qualified fulltime gender adviser contributed significantly to this success in promoting the inclusion and advancement of women. This resulted in the successful implementation of the programme strategy of integrating women into high-value agricultural production and processing - activities that were usually restricted to men. It also enabled women to enjoy the benefits generated from the activities that they controlled. These benefits were mainly used for improved household nutrition and for children‟s education. But in cases where the level of income increased significantly, women also reported improvements in housing. Under the Microfinance and Technical Support Project, Bangladesh (2003-2010) IFAD supported the development of women-centred poultry value chains. The project created

a value chain that is community-based and geographically limited, thereby overcoming the constraint of women‟s limited mobility. Women were trained to be specialized actors at well-defined nodes in the chain (i.e. model poultry breeders, mini-hatchery owners, chick rearers and poultry keepers), and value was added by upgrading and managing gene flow (improved poultry). The level of technology was appropriate because minihatcheries are easy to build and manage. The project benefited from staff committed to empowering women, both within government departments and in the implementing organizations. In this way, women generated an income stream for the household. Overall household income was raised, there were more equitable roles and relations in the household, and women‟s status within the village increased. In 2009, IFAD and the International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) launched a new project - Improving Livelihoods of Small Farmers and Rural Women through Value-Added Processing and Export of Cashmere, Wool and Mohair in Tajikistan - focusing on the marketing aspects of these products and providing capacitybuilding along the entire value chain. This project has helped women to organize themselves into producers‟ groups and, as a result of the training, they are able to sort and grade the fibre. They are also developing their marketing strategies and experimenting with innovative products such as mohair carpets. The project has helped Tajik women gain access to the North American market, and they are now seeking to make a dent in the European market. The Participative Artisanal Fisheries Development Support Programme, Benin (20032011) implemented several learning activities for fishers, and women's participation was very high (about 71 per cent). An intensive communication strategy ensured that information on the programme activities reached both women and men producers. Newsletters, radio programmes and documentaries were produced to inform target groups on fish stock recovery plans and reservoirs. In addition, 110 literacy teachers, both male and female, were hired to run a post-literacy programme for the benefit of almost 3000 people (of whom 36 per cent were women) and evaluation showed that about 80 per cent of learners had become literate. The programme supported the formalization of 50 women's fishmonger groups and strengthened their management and accounting capacity through training and exchange of experience. Five hundred ponds were purchased by the programme to enable women‟s fish trader and processor organizations to market fish. Women‟s processing and marketing activities were further supported by the construction of market spaces and a training programme for improving the quality of fish products. Support the development and provision of financial services suitable to agriculture, and to enable women’s incomes to grow Gender Policy and gender checklist Issue addressed under the SO 1 (i.e. Economic empowerment) of the Gender Policy and also in issue n. 2 of the gender checklist (The project design report articulates – or the project implements – actions which aim to: Expand women‟s economic empowerment through access to and control over fundamental assets) Outcomes and results Women represent 57 percent of active borrowers and 53 percent of voluntary savers supported under IFAD-funded projects (ARRI 2010).

Recent experiences Several actions have been taken to continue disseminating the IFAD gender and rural microfinance manual across IFAD-supported projects. A learning route on gender and rural finance was organized in 2010 in Uganda to scale-up best practices. Several projects have reported outstanding results in promoting women‟s access to financial services as follows: i) The Sofala Bank Artisanal Fishery Project, Mozambique (2002-2011), has empowered women through establishing savings and credit groups, which have broken the gender barrier to accessing microfinance in northern Mozambique The group is based on the traditional xitique in which each member contributes the same amount regularly and one member receives the entire collected amount, in turn. The 1,200 groups have a membership of almost 20,000 of which 46 percent are women; ii) Aamong the activities of the Dhamar Participatory Rural Development Project, Yemen (2004-2012) has been teaching young and adult women to read and write, and enabling them to manage their money. More than 6,500 women have completed elementary literacy training and nearly 3,000 have started their second year. Building on this achievement, 140 savings and credit groups have been set up, the vast majority of which are women‟s groups created by women from the literacy classes. Young women have acquired important new skills, enabling them to increase their incomes, strengthen their livelihood security and resilience to food insecurity, earn the respect of their neighbours and take up positions of responsibility in their communities. The women‟s savings and credit group model has been replicated in other Governorates and the project is considered a flagship for community development at the national level. Earmark funds, wherever feasible, for women in IFAD-funded programmes as an affirmative action measure – for example, under community development funds and in training – in addition to mainstreaming gender equality concerns throughout projects and programmes Gender Policy and checklist These issues are all specifically addressed in the gender checklist under issue 3.1. (ensuring allocation of adequate resources to implement the gender strategy) and issue 3.4 (Ensuring direct project/programme outreach to women, for example through appropriate numbers and qualification of field staff, especially where women‟s mobility is limited) Outcomes and results Women represent 67 percent of the people trained in community management topics (ARRI 2010). Further efforts have to be done to improve women‟s access to agricultural training because they typically represent around one third of the people trained in crop production under IFAD-supported projects. In contrast, they are overrepresented among those trained in business and entrepreneurship. Earmarking funds for women and youth is one of the most popular measures used in projects with a matching grant component. Recent experiences Despite the poor results of women‟s participation in agricultural training, IFAD is increasingly engaged in piloting and scaling-up gender-sensitive approaches to training

and extension. For instance the household mentoring approach, which was piloted in Uganda is now been replicated in other projects and countries. Under this approach, adult members of a household meet together with a trained mentor, selected from the local community. During these visits, men and women in a household are assisted in planning their livelihoods, working together to improve their food security and income, and to share in the benefits equally. This methodology has proved to generate profound impacts at the household level, not only in terms of food security and increased incomes, but also in terms of gender equality and HIV/AIDS mainstreaming. The distinctiveness of this approach is that it brings about changes in gender relations ―from within, rather than being imposed ―from outside. Use grant funding for women’s capacity-building – including child care facilities where needed – when it is not possible to finance such activities through a loan Gender Policy and checklist Issue addressed under the SO3 (Workload reduction and balance) of the Gender Policy and also under Issue 2 of the gender checklist (The project design report articulates – or the project implements – actions which aim to: Improve women‟s knowledge and well-being and ease their workloads by facilitating their access to basic rural services and infrastructure) Outcomes and results Data are only available at the project level. Recent experiences Under several projects in Central America grants are allocated to groups of women producers, which also includes funding for labour-savings infrastructures, including potable water and improved cooking stoves. The Belgian Survival Fund has complemented several IFAD-projects to promote women‟s access to water and other rural infrastructures. Under the Central Kenya Dry Area Smallholder and Community Services Development Project, CKDAP (2000-2010) the time and effort saved by collecting water from piped water within the homestead or from a nearby spring tap, was up to five hours per day. Women spent the time saved on other activities, including casual labouring, working in their own fields, watering livestock, irrigating their kitchen gardens, starting small businesses, or keeping their house and surroundings cleaner. Likewise, in Mozambique thanks to wells being sunk closer to their homesteads, many women in Sofala Bank Artisanal Fishery Project, PPABAS (2002-2011) saved energy and gained one or two hours per day for doing domestic, agricultural and fishing activities, depending on the location and season. The extra time spent in their fields or fishing for shrimps enabled them to bring more food home for consumption and sale in the market. Other benefits included a reduction in the incidence of diarrhoeal diseases, particularly among children, and improvements in women‟s physical health because they did not have to carry heavy jerry cans so far, which damaged their backs. Women had more time

Seek to negotiate for joint titling – where IFAD-funded programmes support access to land and other kinds of property – supported with legal advisory services to enable women to defend their rights Gender Policy and checklist Issue addressed under the SO 1 (i.e. Economic empowerment) of the Gender Policy and also in issue n. 2 of the gender checklist (The project design report articulates – or the project implements – actions which aim to: Expand women‟s economic empowerment through access to and control over fundamental assets) Outcomes and results Data are only available at the project level Recent experiences In Gambia, under the Livestock and Horticulture Development Project (LHDP), effective since March 2010, the dialogue with the government authorities has paved the way for women to inherit land. As a result of sensitization and awareness-raising activities with government officers at the field level, women have achieved greater access to land and the majority now have land ownership rights, with the ability to pass this land to their kin. These practices have not yet been nationalised, but are largely practised at the village level where discussions have taken place. The Legal Empowerment of Women Programme (2008-2011), supported by Canadian supllementary funds, operated in five countries to promote gender equality and reduce women‟s vulnerabilities through economic and legal empowerment. In Burundi, over 500 women were trained as para-jurists on subjects such as women‟s rights, laws, inheritance rights and conflict resolution. About 1,000 cases were presented by women, 90 per cent of which were on issues such as mistreatment, abandonment, polygamy, violence and sexual abuse. The jurists operating at the Centres de Developpement Familial, were able to solve 20 per cent of cases by coming to amicable agreements, often with the intermediation of local leaders. The project was well received by the community and the large number of cases submitted by women demonstrated the great need for legal services by women. In India, the programme prepared specific tribalrelated legal information material for community mobilizers working in tribal projects. In Liberia, attention focused on identifying obstacles to rural women‟s access to land and other productive resources, and building the capacities of authorities and communities to create the environment and conditions for change. In Senegal, the existing agricultural policy was reviewed and training provided to promote gender equality and equity in the preparation of the new economic and social policy. In Malawi, awareness campaigns were conducted on women‟s rights, HIV/AIDS and girl child education. Messages were delivered through speeches, drama, and traditional dances by a team of peer educators trained by the programme on gender violence and inheritance, as well as on theatre for development.

Give attention to the specific situation and needs of young women, in the context of a much-needed focus on rural youth Gender Policy and checklist The forthcoming Gender Policy highlights that IFAD in its operational approaches will make focused efforts to reach young rural women with economic and social development opportunities. Outcomes and results Given than this is a relatively new topic for IFAD, data are not available yet. Recent experiences Several initiatives have been promoted in the last few years to increase attention to young rural women in IFAD-supported projects. Action research on young rural women is currently being conducted in several countries of the Latin American and Caribbean region, aimed at better understanding the specific needs and visions of young rural women in order to translate them into concrete actions. Open spaces for women farmer leaders to participate in country and global policy processes, and also in IFAD country strategy consultations Gender Policy and checklist Issue addressed under SO2 (Decision-making and representation) of the Gender Policy. Recent experiences The first Global Gathering of Women Pastoralists took place in Mera, India in November 2010. IFAD supported this initiative, together with other donors, with a grant to MARAG, a voluntary organization which works to educate, organize and empower the Maldharis – a marginalized pastoral community from Gujarat in India.. The purpose was to empower women pastoralists to participate equitably in decision-making within their communities, governments and other local, national, regional and international forums, whilst also raising awareness of the specific challenges they face in the context of shifting social, economic and ecological environments. Participants adopted the Mera Declaration and called on governments, governing agencies of the United Nations, other relevant international and regional organizations, research institutes and their own customary leaders to support and recognize the essential role of pastoralists in global environmental sustainability, including the conservation of biodiversity; mitigation of climate change and combating desertification; and to ensure the equal rights of pastoralist women and recognize their key role in society. Establish quotas for women in the design of the projects and programmes that work with farmers’ organizations (where possible, not less than 30 per cent, with a view to reaching 50 per cent over time), provide incentives for producer organizations to achieve the targets, and monitor their implementation Gender Policy and checklist Issue addressed under SO2 (Decision-making and representation) of the Gender Policy. Issue addressed in the gender checklists: Ensuring and supporting women‟s active participation in project-related decision-making bodies and committees;

Outcomes and results Data are only available at the project level. Recent experiences A learning route was organized in October 2011 and will be replicated in January 2012 to disseminate successful approaches concerning the promotion of more gendersensitive rural organizations. The implementation of the “closing the gap” methodology (which was developed as part of the Regional Programme to Consolidate GenderMainstreaming Strategies in IFAD-Financed Projects of Latin America and the Caribbean (PROGENDER, 2000-2003)) has proved to be an effective tool to enable organizations‟ members to assess the gender sensitivity of their organizations and guide them in the development and monitoring of a strategy to promote women‟s active membership and inclusion of the youth. All the groups visited had matured into more inclusive and gender-balanced institutions and in most cases the presence of dynamic women members as well as male leaders who are committed to gender equality, has paid-off in terms of improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness. The learning route is contributing to disseminate these approaches and experiences across several IFADsupported projects in the region, as well as in Africa and Asia. Invest more grant resources in increasing the capacity of farmers’ organizations to address gender issues and empower women, and to strengthen women’s leadership – where possible channeling funds directly to women’s structures within organizations Recent experiences Since late 2009, IFAD has been implementing – with co-financing from the Government of Norway - a Rural Women‟s Leadership Programme covering Nepal, Philippines, Senegal and Madagascar. The four pilot projects primarily target women members of mixed farmer/rural producer organizations and have included training of trainers in women‟s leadership, developing training modules and materials, the roll-out of women‟s leadership training at grassroots level in selected locations, and media and advocacy work on the importance of women‟s role and leadership in farmer organisations. The purpose has been not only to create capacity and awareness in the pilot countries, but also to generate approaches and lessons learned for replication in other countries. Involve women leaders of farmers’ organizations in the supervision and monitoring of development programmes No action has been taken in this regard.

3.

APPENDIX 3

SUPPORT TO PROGRAMME

FARMERS’PRGANIZATIONS

IN

AFRICA

Introduction Each global meeting of the Farmers‟ Forum (FAFO) triggers a new set of initiatives and collaborations on the ground. One of them is the Support to Farmers‟ Organisations in Africa Programme (SFOAP) that was initiated in 2007 after the first global meeting of the FAFO. The SFOAP is a capacity building programme financed by the European Commission (EC) and IFAD over 2009-2012 and implemented by four regional African Networks of Farmers‟ Organisations (RFOs): Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF), Plateforme Sous-Régionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC), Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (ROPPA), and Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU). The SFOAP is the first continental programme in Africa to be initiated by the RFOs and it currently supports 55 national organizations in 41 countries, their regional networks, and the Pan-African Farmers Organization (PAFO). Participating NFOs are all membershipbased organisations composed of smallholders. EAFF‟s, PROPAC‟s and ROPPA‟s constitutions specifically promote smallholder farming. SACAU also includes national organisations of commercial farmers, however they do not participate in the Programme. SACAU‟s board is composed by a majority of leaders of smallholder organisations. The programme is endowed with €6.1 million: the EC contributes €5 million from 2009-2011 and provides its funding through IFAD, and IFAD provides €1.1 million from 2010-2012 (see Annex 1 for approximate donor‟s contribution by recipient during the overall duration of the programme). The SFOAP has a pyramidal structure: funds go to regional FOs that channel them off to National Farmers Organisations (NFOs). IFAD is engaged as an intermediary executing agency in charge of the programme‟s direct supervision. RFOs themselves approached IFAD to become a partner in the programme and to play the role of an intermediary executing agency. The choice of IFAD as the partner managing the fund was based on the long-standing collaboration with IFAD that developed before and through the FAFO. The choice of IFAD comes also from the unique focus of the Fund on smallholders and family farmers and the vast potential of operational collaboration on the ground through the 120 on-going IFAD supported projects in Africa. The partnership for the programme goes beyond the direct financial and technical support provided by IFAD and the EC since it is also catalytic to develop synergies and complementarities between SFOAP-promoted activities and those developed by the 4 regional FOs networks in partnership with the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

45

Objectives and supported activities The purpose of the programme is to strengthen the capacity of small farmer organisations in African countries and of their regional and Pan-African networks to influence policies and support programmes affecting agriculture, rural development and food security. To achieve this purpose, the programme has two objectives: (a) to strengthen the institutional capacity of FOs in Africa, and of their regional and PanAfrican networks, and (b) to enable FOs influencing policies and support programmes affecting agriculture, rural development and food security. SFOAP activities are consequently implemented under two main components (see chart below): capacitybuilding (73% of resources) and involvement in policy processes (27% of resources).

are and how they want to address them.

An innovative aspect of the programme stems from the fact that SFOAP is completely demand-driven and is led primarily by the four RFOs. Regional programmes of activities are based on priority requirements of recipient organizations as identified by themselves to ensure that programmed activities contribute to the achievement of FOs‟ constitutional mandates and of strategic objectives as set forth by constitutional organs. RFOs are directly responsible for managing SFOAP funds, for assisting NFOs in implementing activities at the national level and reporting upon them, and for developing activities at the regional level. This approach reflects IFAD‟s recognition of RFOs legitimacy and capacity to determine, together with their national affiliates, what their priorities

To support FOs‟ ownership and empowerment, SFOAP resources are also used to strengthen FOs capacities to plan activities, to implement them based on transparent and accountable procedures and to report to their constituencies and to their development partners. In addition, all activities, systems or strategies that benefit from SFOAP resources are geared towards strengthening existing FOs‟ structure and supporting FOs‟ strategic objectives. There are no parallel structures, mechanisms or activities specific to SFOAP implementation. Rather, programme activities and systems are embedded in existing structures, which contributes to enhanced ownership and stronger impact. Table in Annex 2 shows the main areas of intervention supported by each FO benefiting from the programme. As a general orientation, made exception for EAFF, all FOs allocated the major percentage of funds to support the strengthening of secretariats (mainly staff and equipment related costs). This is true for 22 FOs and all the regional Secretariats while in the case of EAFF members, FOs mainly used programme funds to support profiling and strategic planning (3 FOs), to train staff and leaders (1FO) and to support consultations among FOs (3 FOs). As a second choice, funds were mainly used to support consultations among FOs (14 FOs), backstopping and training for staff and leaders in programme management and leadership skills (6 FOs), policy consultations (2 FOs) and advocacy and lobbying activities (3 FOs). Table 1 contains a summary of the monitoring of the programme at output level, to show progress against the targets. The data expressed in the table highlight several outputs being on track or above the targets. In relation to component 1.2 (which is allocated 40% of total programme budget allocated for component 1 and 2), the data reflect the importance accorded by the 4 Networks and their members to enhance

46

proper management capacities of the organizations through the support to their core functions. Under subcomponent 1.4, it should be noted how mobilization activities were considered relevant in order to enable NFOs to communicate with members and to consult each other through the organization of meetings and the exchange of information on relevant issues. Efforts were also concentrated in developing communication strategies and in organising communication activities at different levels. Involvement in policy processes related to agriculture development is also considered by FOs a relevant activity to enable them to discuss policy issues of relevance to them and to develop shared positions to be promoted at different levels. Nevertheless, activities carried out under subcomponent 2.1 are still limited. Gender balance is considered as a crosscutting issue in all participating FOs, by fostering women‟s participation in programme activities and through specific activities aiming at facilitating women participation in FOs and at developing gender-balanced approaches. Gender mainstreaming strategy includes women quotas, and a gender sensitive monitoring and evaluation system. Women‟s inclusion in programme activities and FOs decision-making is monitored through gender-disaggregated indicators in the logframe.

Table 1. Output indicators: targets and progress as of 31 December 2010 Subcomponent

Programme Output indicators

Targets

1.1 Support to FOs profiling, Constitutional texts, manuals of 25 strategic planning and procedures, or institutional profiling communication developed or revised

Achievements 18

26

9

thematic 22

8

Communication strategies and tools 22 developed

6

Management systems or tools adopted

9

3

61 (annually)

49 in 2009 56 in 2010

FO offices equipped annually

24 (annually)

14 in 2009 24 in 2010

FOs audited annually

17 (annually)

17 in 2009 6 in 2010

Member data bases developed Strategic plans and programmes developed

1.2 Support to FOs core Staff salaries paid functions

1.3 Training and technical Training or capacity building events 87 backstopping organized FO leaders, staff or members trained 1.4 Communication among FOs governing meetings FOs and partners Consultation events among FOs

69

2060

3899

35

34

35

72

Communication activities and contacts 35 with partners/public

102

Exchange visits among FOs

3

21

1.5 Support to creation of Constitutive Assembly of the Pan- 1 Pan-African Farmers Platform African Platform occurred

1

2.1 Studies and analyses

Regional studies realized

20

4

National studies realized

21

10

45

58

58

18

or 62

20

Local, national or international policy 66 fora attended by FOs

35

2.2 Formulation of policy policy consultations among FOs statements and position FOs policy positions developed documents by FOs 2.3 Lobbying and advocacy Lobbying with decision-makers products

2.4 Monitoring the Monitoring implementation of undertaken national/regional/international policies and programmes

events,

publications

meetings

47

or

missions 24

11

Programme implementation The supervision of the programme is ensured through a unit within IFAD Policy and Technical Advisory Division. In particular, IFAD has the main following responsibilities: (i) to supervise the implementation of activities through regular supervision missions; (ii) to provide implementation support to the RFOs and NFOs when necessary; (iii) to ensure the quality of narrative and financial progress reports and annual work plans for the overall programme and submit them to the EC; (iv) to establish Grant Agreements between IFAD and RFOs and (v) to channel funds to RFOs. Innovation is present in SFOAP institutional mechanisms with the establishment of a Programme Steering Committee (SC) at the continental level, who is responsible to pilot overall programme implementation. The SC is composed by the RFOs and IFAD. CTA, FAO and EC participate to the SC as observers. This special feature aims at developing the linkages between RFOs and development partners and it facilitates linkages and promotes coordination and harmonisation. The Peer Review, which groups the four RFOs and aims at discussing global SFOAP performance, anticipating problems and finding solutions before going to the Steering Committee is also an innovative consulting mechanism that facilitates mutual help between RFOs, building on positive examples experienced during programme implementation. Programme Impact The Programme is now at its third year of implementation. Overall, the impacts of SFOAP support so far can be identified in the following key areas: 

Increased management capacity: SFOAP significantly contributed to improve the professionalization of FOs at both regional and national level. The consolidation of FOs core functions such as professional financial and technical management, accountability towards their memberships, improved governance and transparency have all improved through financial support to FOs operational costs and technical backstopping by IFAD and RFOs to their members. Through modest financial contributions, SFOAP programme played a critical catalytic role by creating conducive institutional and managerial conditions for all Farmer Organisations (FOs) participating in the project to develop their activities. In addition, the support provided by SFOAP has been the first that has provided un-conditional support to FOs in Sub-Saharan Africa core functions enabling them to focus on their priority rather than responding to requests and demands coming from the donor community.



FOs as more effective players in African policy processes: The strengthened capacities of FOs are now resulting in a significant change in terms of RFO and NFOs representation at policy making forums and RFOs are increasingly present in policy initiatives at regional and continental level, such as the CAADP processes 23. This has increased their recognition by the partners, and visibility in policy making processes as the respective governments are increasingly recognizing them as an important partner in the formulation of agricultural policies and programmes.



Broadening alliances and partnerships: FOs‟ are more and more able to mobilize more external support and engage in public investment projects thanks to their increased visibility and negotiating skills.



FOs, knowledge management and communication. SFOAP enabled FOs to develop peer-to-peer support and to share knowledge and experience generated from country-level activities.

23

EAFF is increasingly being recognized as a strong regional organization and was designated by COMESA as a signatory to the regional Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) compact and the EAFF President sits on the Partnership Committee of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) for CAADP. PROPAC was enabled to develop partnerships with regional integration bodies (i.e. regional economic and monetary unions CEEAC and CEMAC, administrative council of CORAF and PRASAC). Through the strengthened capacity of SACAU secretariat, the RFO is becoming an important partner for consultation in the region, representing farmers at regional and continental forums organized by relevant bodies such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the CAADP, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union (AU) and the Forum for African Agriculture Research (FARA). Similarly, ROPPA and its members are increasingly recognised as smallholder representatives in policy processes, and they are members of various Task Forces and consultative bodies on sector policies.

48



The first farmers continental platform: an innovative pan-African platform and network, the Pan-African Farmer Organization (PAFO), was established in October 2010. PAFO developed a clear mission statement and gained legal status and recognition as being the voice of African FOs.

A new phase for SFOAP Supported FOs increased their institutional capacities and they improved their capacity to produce more professional, evidence-based inputs to influence policy processes especially at the regional level. Nonetheless, even if the potential impact of the SFOAP to improve the livelihood of rural poor producers in Africa remains high, significant start-up delay combined with organisational weaknesses had a knock-on effect on the impact. In addition, the objectives of the SFOAP were too ambitious for a 3 years capacity building programme. SFOAP could therefore be considered as a pilot project and the 4 RFOs and President of PAFO agreed on the importance of having a second phase of the Programme to ensure sustainability and visible impact. Given the need to start planning for a second phase of SFOAP financing, RFOs organised a brainstorming workshop in May 2011 in Yaoundé to define a common approach, goal, objectives, and to further detail the regional programming phase coming from a shared ground. As agreed in Yaoundé the SFOAP Main Phase will be characterised by the following elements:  5 years duration (2013-2017);  The introduction of a third component - Provision of Economic Services;  The inclusion of a fifth regional network (UMAGRI - Union Maghrébine des Agriculteurs);  Increased budget for EC funding: 15 million EUR;  Envisaged cofinanging from IFAD, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Agence Française de Développement Lessons learnt guiding the de sign and formulation of SFOAP Main Phase A wealth of lessons has been emerging from the implementation of the SFOAP‟s pilot phase that influences the design and formulation of the main phase. The most important lessons learned follow: The adoption of a strategic approach guarantees effectiveness and ownership of the support. Support should be oriented following the priorities set in FOs‟ strategic plans to answer to the real need of the organisations. Support to FOs should as much as possible be based on FOs‟ strategies, planning and pace of development - especially for younger and less experienced FOs. A result-oriented support focusing on high-level outcomes and quantified indicators leaving more flexibility in the articulation of the activities would be developed for the main phase and a result-oriented M&E system will be articulated to define impact indicators of the programme outputs and outcomes. Also, RFOs identified communication and knowledge management as fundamental functions to be improved. Peer learning and mentoring will be an important element of approach to promote FOs capacity development. RFOs have indicated that the reporting requirements of SFOAP have proven to be very heavy on them and especially on the national FOs. As highlighted during 2011 IFAD supervision missions, in some cases reporting requirements are not adapted to small emerging organizations and can lead to an inflation of administrative tasks for leaders and staff of the organizations. The 2010 EC Results Oriented Monitoring Mission also noted that the increased amount of pressure from the donor side to ensure timely financial reporting from vulnerable organisations was counterproductive and significant start-up delay and organisational weaknesses had a domino effect on programme effectiveness and efficiency. A right balance between administrative requirements and NFO capacities should be found, avoiding major ruptures or delays in the flow of funds. 

Increased participation in policy processes, with the objective of actually influencing policy making, has been a central feature of the pilot phase and will remain critical for the Main Phase. Engagement in policy processes remains a

49

challenge for a number of national FOs: their influence has in most cases been limited due to still inadequate capacities to analyse policies, develop policy positions and negotiate for their positions. There is a need of substantial support to make policy process effective and policy activities at national level should be more streamlined with the regional policy work to avoid dispersion of funds and activities and to maximize the synergies at all levels for better impact. The SFOAP main phase would concentrate on supporting NFOs in consolidating their positions through building their capacity in policy analysis and negotiation skills and NFOs will be encouraged to start with non-controversial and non-complex issues to gradually develop their capacity in addressing more complex issues. 

Another lesson from the SFOAP pilot phase is to use the SFOAP funding and support as catalytic ones to develop partnership and contracts with public (and donor) supported national programmes for agriculture and rural development. 2011 IFAD Supervision missions were taken as an opportunity to organize meetings between IFAD-supported projects and NFOs in countries visited to develop linkages and seize opportunities and potential of collaboration. All the meetings revealed a strong interest on both sides and confirmed the potential of the collaboration. NFOs could participate as implementing partners in on-going projects and could play a more effective role in their policy and advocacy activities, by referring to on the ground experience. Annual supervision missions of a multi-donor support programme as the SFOAP will be instrumentally used to trigger these country-level partnerships and to develop annual calendars of collaboration between major donor-supported programmes and national FOs.



FOs long-term sustainability and provision of economic services. The issue of sustainability is critical for RFOs and NFOs and it would be then the specific focus of the main phase of SFOAP. Long term sustainability of FOs is mainly a function of the quality of services they will deliver to their members. Providing better services to members can be scaled up through progressive partnership of national FOs with national programmes on agriculture, including those supported by donors, including the IFAD country programmes. The systematic development of country-level partnership might be an important entry point to ensure that FOs are able to provide services to their members. This, in turn, would ensure their long term sustainability. Finally, FOs financial sustainability would be promoted through FOs‟ provision of economic services to their members so as to enter profitably into agriculture value chains. As a result, a new component is envisaged for the main phase to improve quality of economic services to members for long-term prospects of sustainability.



A Pan-African approach and the need of a comprehensive support. The PAFO needs a new phase to become fully operational, roll out a policy programme and start activities at the pan-African level. In addition, the first phase contributed to improve the cooperation with the fifth African FOs‟ network– UMAGRI, the FOs‟ network representing farmers in North Africa. Hence the SFOAP main phase would be extended to the North Africa network – a timely decision also in light of regional political and social changes and the potential space that genuine FOs representing of voice of smallholder farmers would contribute to shaping a policy process with an explicit support to family agriculture.

50

Annex 1. Donors’ contribution to FOs National FOs in blue are receiving direct financial support from SFOAP RFO

Name of National Farmers’ Organisation

Country

EAFF REGIONAL SECRETARIAT Confédération des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles pour le Développement (CAPAD) Fédération des Organisations des Producteurs Agricoles du Congo au Nord-Kivu (FOPAC) Djibouti Breeders Association

Burundi DR Congo Djibouti

National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) * Eritrea Oromia Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (OCFCU) Ethiopia Oromia Pastoralists Association Ethiopia Cooperative Alliance of Kenya (CAK) Kenya Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers (KENFAP) Kenya EAFF Kenya Livestock Producers Association (KLPA) Kenya Syndicat Rwandais des Agriculteurs et Eleveurs (INGABO) Rwanda Syndicat Des agri-éleveurs du Rwanda (IMBARAGA) Rwanda Tanzania Federation of Cooperatives (TFC) Tanzania Mtandao wa Vikundi Vya Wakulima wa Tanzania (MVIWATA) Tanzania Agriculture Council of Tanzania (ACT) Tanzania Uganda Cooperative Alliance (UCA) Uganda Uganda National Farmers‟ Federation (UNFFE) Uganda National Union of Coffee Agribusinesses and Farm Enterprises (NUCAFE) Uganda Subtotal EAFF PROPAC REGIONAL SECRETARIAT Confederaçoa das associacoes de camponesese cooperativas agro-pecuarias de Angola (UNACA) * Angola Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Burundi (CNOP Burundi) Burundi Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Cameroun (CNOP-CAM ) Cameroon Conseil National de Concertation des Producteurs Ruraux du Tchad (CNCPRT) Chad Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes de Centrafrique (CNOP CAF) Central African Republic Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Congo (CNOP Congo) Congo PROPAC Fédération Nationale des Organisations Paysannes de la Guinée Equatoriale (FENOCGE) Equatorial Guinea Confédération Paysanne du Congo (COPACO) DR Congo Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Gabon (CNOP Gabon) Gabon Fédération Nationale des Petits Producteurs de Sao Tome et Principe (FENAPA STP) Sao Tomé and Principe Subtotal PROPAC ROPPA REGIONAL SECRETARIAT Plate-forme Nationale des Organisations Paysannes et des producteurs Agricoles du Bénin (PNOPPA) Benin Confédération paysanne du Faso (CPF) Burkina Faso National Coordinating Organisation for Farmer Associations of The Gambia (NACOFAG) Gambia ROPPA Farmers Organisations Network of Ghana (FONG) Ghana Conseil national des Organisations Paysannes de Guinée (CNOP-G) Guinea Quadro nacional de Concertacão das Organizaçoes Camponeses e productores agricolas da Guiné Bissau Guinea Bissau (QCOPGB) Association nationale des Organisations de Producteurs agricoles de Côte d‟Ivoire (ANOPACI) Ivory Coast

51

EC IFAD contribution contribution

TOTAL

341 823 61 500 61 500

102 410 22 110 22 120

44233 83610 82987

109 200

22 120

147076

61 500

22 120

83620

61 500

22 120

83621

61 500

22 120

81155

61 500

22 120

83619

820 023 346 853 32 220 33 278 65 939 65 534 52 837 49 741 31 690 55 611 50 180 38 116 819 999 358 335 37 219 46 369 42 467 37 635 33 070

275 120 102 486 11 743 9 557 31 567 22 901 21 036 18 052 8 794 24 427 14 235 10 320 275 118 112 847 13 628 13 486 13 492 13 484 13 540 13 484

1 095 143 449 339 43 963 42 835 97 506 86 435 73 873 67 793 40 484 80 038 64 415 48 436 1 095 117 471 182 50 846 59 854 55 958 48 741 51 174 46 553

13 484

52 055

38 572 42 467

SACAU

Liberian farmers Union Network Coordination nationale des Organisations paysannes du Mali (CNOP-M) Plateforme paysanne du Niger (PFP-N) Conseil national de Concertation et de Coopération des ruraux (CNCR) National Farmers Association of Sierra Leone (NAFSL) Coordination togolaise des Organisations paysannes et de Producteurs agricoles (CTOP) Subtotal ROPPA SACAU REGIONAL SECRETARIAT Botswana Agricultural Union (BAU) Lesotho National Agricultural Union (LENAFU) Coalition of Farmers Organizations (CPM) Confédération des Agriculteurs Malagasy (FEKRITAMA) Farmers‟ Union of Malawi National Smallholder Farmers‟ Association of Malawi Uniao Nacional de Componesses Namibia National Farmers' Union (NAFU) *

Liberia Mali Niger Senegal Sierra Leone Togo

Namibia Agricultural Union Seychelles Farmers' Association (SeyFA) Agri-South Africa Swaziland National Agricultural Union (SNAU) Agricultural Council of Tanzania (ACT) Zambia National Farmers‟ Union (ZNFU) Zimbabwe Farmers' Union (ZFU) Commercial Farmers‟ Union Subtotal SACAU

Namibia Seychelles South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe Zimbabwe

Botswana Lesotho Madagascar Madagascar Malawi Malawi Mozambique Namibia

42 001 31 974 35 034 40 133 41 938 820 000 329 152

13 499 13 520 13 488 13 638 13 561 275 146 102 486

55 499 45 493 48 521 53 770 55 498 1 095 146 431 638

97 807 81 808

28 772 28 772

126 579 110 580

65 808

28 772

94 580

81 808

28 772

110 580

81 808 81 809

28 772 28 772

110 580 110 581

820 000

27 5118

1 095 118

*Financing to the FO was suspended during programme implementation and reallocated on the basis of priority needs.

Annex 2. Main key areas supported through the SFOAP Main areas supported Profiling and strategic planning

Strengthening of FOs Secretariats (staff and equipment mainly)

Training for staff and leaders (programme management, leadership skills etc.) and backstopping

First choice

Second choice

EAFF (OCFCU – Ethiopia, UNFFE- Uganda, KENFAP- Kenya) ROPPA (ANOPACI – Cote d‟Ivoire) EAFF (EAFF Secretariat) PROPAC (PROPAC Secretariat, CNOP-Gabon, CNOP-CAM, CNOP-Congo, COPACO RDC, CNCPRT Chad, CAF Central African Republic, CNOP-Burundi, FENAPA – Sao Tomé and Principe, FENOGE-Equatorial Guinea) ROPPA (ROPPA Secretariat, PNOPPA-Benin, CPF-Burkina Faso, NACOFAGGambia, FONG-Ghana, QCOPGB – Guinea Bissau, CNOP-Mali, CNCR-Senegal, NAFSL- Sierra Leone, CTOP-Togo) SACAU (SACAU Secretariat, ACT-Tanzania, CPM-Madagascar, LENAFU-Lesotho, SeyFA – Seychelles, SNAU – Swaziland) EAFF (FOPAC – DRC)

EAFF (FOPAC – DRC) ROPPA (CPF – Burkina Faso, FONG-Ghana) EAFF (CAPAD-Burundi) ROPPA (ANOPACI – Cote d‟Ivoire, CNOP-Guinea, PFP-Niger)

52

EAFF (Mviwata – Tanzania, UNFFE- Uganda, KENFAP-Kenya) ROPPA (NACOFAG-Gambia, NAFSL- Sierra Leone) SACAU (ACT-Tanzania)

EAFF (EAFF Secretariat)

Studies and analysis ROPPA (CNOP-Guinea, PFP-Niger)

PROPAC (PROPAC Secretariat, CNOP-Gabon, CNOP-CAM, CNOPCongo, COPACO-RDC CNCPRT Chad, CAF Central African Republic, CNOP-Burundi, FENAPA – Sao Tomé and Principe, FENOGE- Equatorial Guinea) ROPPA (QCOPGB – Guinea Bissau, CNOP-Mali, CNCR-Senegal, CTOPTogo) SACAU (LENAFU-Lesotho) ROPPA (ROPPA Secretariat) SACAU (SACAU Secretariat, SNAU – Swaziland, SeyFA – Seychelles) EAFF (OCFCU – Ethiopia) SACAU (CPM-Madagascar) ROPPA (PNOPPA – Benin) EAFF (Imbaraga and Ingabo – Rwanda)

Consultations among FOs

Consultations for policy dialogue

EAFF (Mviwata-Tanzania, Imbaraga and Ingabo – Rwanda) EAFF (CAPAD-Burundi)

Advocacy and lobby Communication

53

APPENDIX 4 Case Study: IFAD-MERCOSUR

I. FO profile and history IFAD has a long history of partnership with farmers' organizations in the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) of Latin America, playing an active role in supporting their engagement in policy dialogue at regional level. A two-track partnership strategy has been followed over the years, providing support to two entities: (a) the Commission on Family Farming of the Common Market of the South (REAF MERCOSUR) and (b) the Coordination of Family Farmers of MERCOSUR (COPROFAM). REAF is an advisory body to the Common Market Group (CMG) of the MERCOSUR. It provides assistance and a platform of policy dialogue on Family Farming, submitting proposals to both the CMG and the national governments involved in the Commission. The special feature of REAF is its inclusiveness: both government and Civil Society representatives take part in it on equal footing, binding the submission of proposals to the CMG to the consensual agreement of all parts. REAF was established in 2004 with a mandate to support the inclusion of Family Farming issues in the process of regional integration, stimulating supportive public policies and facilitating the trade of its products for income generation. Strengthening REAF has led to improvements in the design and application of public policies in support of family farming, as well as in sustaining rural poverty reduction in MERCOSUR member countries. 24 COPROFAM is a confederation of family farmer producers of the MERCOSUR, a regional network which encompasses 1225 national farmer organizations in Latin America, representing approximately 350 second tier family farmers‟ organizations in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with Bolivia, Peru and Chile participating as associate members. It was funded in 1994 and has since then acted as a representative body, advocating for small-scale agriculture in regional and international platforms. In 2007, during its 6th General Assembly, it was granted the legal status of a corporate body. COPROFAM takes active part in the REAF, where it has progressively established a key position in the debates and negotiations for the design of public policies and programmes across the countries of the region. To that extent, COPROFAM has increased its capacity over the years in collecting data and carrying out research and specialized studies on family farming at both national and regional level.

II. Evolution of FO partnership modalities with IFAD Between 2000 and 2004, prior to the establishment of REAF, an IFAD-MERCOSUR grant contributed to the creation and consolidation of policy dialogue platforms to address the specific needs of small-scale family farmers in the context of regional economic integration. In response to a request from MERCOSUR, a specialized commission on Farmer Organizations (later REAF) was created in 2004. The following year, IFAD approved a 3-year Grant of USD 1.09 million to support the establishment of REAF, co24

Source: website http://www.reafmercosul.org/reaf/sobre/historico and “An assessment of the strengthening the participation of small farmers‟ organization in policy dialogue within the commission on family farming of the MERCOSUR grant ( December 2007). P 1, 2 25

National member organizations are: Argentina: Federación Agraria Argentina (FAA); Bolivia: Coordinadora de Integración de Organizaciones Económicas Campesinas (CIOEC); Brasil: Confederación Nacional de los Trabajadores en la Agricultura (CONTAG); Chile: Movimiento Unitario de Campesinos y Etnias de Chile (MUCECH) y Voz del Campo; Paraguay: Unión Agrícola Nacional (UAN) y Organización Nacional Campesina (ONAC); Perú: Confederación Campesina de Perú (CCP); Uruguay: Asociación de Colonos de Uruguay (ACU), Asociación de Mujeres Rurales de Uruguay (AMRU), Comisión Nacional de Fomento Rural (CNFR) y la Intergremial de Productores de Leche (IPL). .

54

financed by MERCOSUR (USD 510.000). The specific objectives of the grant were to foster dialogue between rural organizations and MERCOSUR authorities and to achieve recognition by governments on the need to develop quality policies and instruments for family farming and rural poverty. Map of MERCOSUR IFAD renewed its support to REAF through a new 2-year Grant of USD 1.035 million, co-financed by MERCOSUR (USD 510,000) and approved in 2008. The Grant further supported REAF to institutionalizing policy dialogue between FOs and governments, thereby strengthening their capacity and the level of participation in the design and implementation of rural poverty reduction policies and programs in the region. Moreover, similar to the first Grant, it sought to raise awareness among governments on the importance of developing specific policies for family farming and the need of making appropriate financial resource allocations for their implementation. Since 2007, the year before the second Grant was presented for IFAD‟s EB approval, IFAD made consistent efforts through enhanced awareness and sensitization– to ensure that REAF‟s operational costs were gradually taken over by MERCOSUR and its Member Countries, paving the way for sustained cooperation for family farming in regional and national fora. As a permanent consolidated body, REAF started to rely on MERCOSUR‟s own resources, while Grant resources were progressively redirected to specific thematic topics such as gender and youth. As mentioned later in this paper, MERCOSUR established a fund, the “Fondo del MERCOSUR para la Agricultura Familiar (FAF)” to fund REAF‟s operations. In December 2011, IFAD Executive Board has approved a new Grant of USD 1.8 million aiming at strengthening the application of REAF-generated policies into specific public investment programs in member countries of MERCOSUR, and at disseminating the experience and modus operandi of the REAF platform beyond the MERCOSUR and the Latin American region. The amount of USD 500,000 has been allocated to support South- South Cooperation on this practice - mainly with specific LAC countries and South Africa26 - so to broaden and to scale up the experience beyond the MERCOSUR region. With regard to COPROFAM, IFAD has supported its establishment and operation through a number of Grants since 2000. The institutional strengthening of COPROFAM and its enhanced capacity to represent family farmers of MERCOSUR, has contributed to the effectiveness of IFAD‟s support to REAF, creating important synergies between the two initiatives. A first small grant of USD 150,000 supported the process of establishing COPROFAM as a wide regional network, strengthening also its role in policy development at regional 26

Source: New grant design document (2011)

55

level. With IFAD support, COPROFAM‟s legal status was defined and subsidiary bodies were established, enhancing its capacity to effectively act both at national and regional level. In 2008, IFAD approved a Grant of USD 1,03 million to provide broader institutional and capacity development support to rural organizations for policy dialogue, through COPROFAM. Of the total amount committed by the co-financed programme, USD 614,000 was provided by Agriterra27, Oxfam, Action Aid and COPROFAM itself. The new Grant was aimed at consolidating COPROFAM in its role to enhance the capacities (and the position) of producer organizations to influence institutional changes with regard to rural poverty reduction. Research on relevant policy issues and support to knowledge management and communication resulted in leaders of FOs being able to contribute in a substantive manner to the formulation of policies, laws and regulations, as well as the preparation of rural development projects to benefit family farming.28 Importantly, small farmers‟ participation in political dialogue was strengthened, through emphasizing the principles of equitable development, ensuring also a strong presence of women and youth in the activities supported by the Grant, such as capacity development, training policy analysis studies and research29.

III. Impact30 of the IFAD-FO smallholder farming communities

partnership

on

The unique feature of this partnership is that IFAD has combined direct support to FOs through COPROFAM grants with support to a formal platform of policy dialogue between FOs and the Governments of MERCOSUR, with full support from the Government themselves. Through its support to COPROFAM, IFAD has enhanced the capacity of Farmers‟ Organizations to promote their interests in national and regional policy and advocacy fora. In parallel, support to the operation of REAF has strengthened this institutional platform, enabling the voices of small family farmers to be channeled to the political agenda of MERCOSUR countries and their policy making processes.31 IFAD‟s cooperation with Farmers‟ Organizations in the MERCOSUR has been instrumental in calling attention to the specific needs of family farming and rural populations in the region. The synergies and complementarities fostered between REAF and COPROFAM has undoubtedly helped to strengthen this cause. The experience has become a model for other countries – including beyond Latin America – to replicate and/or scale up. Some positive impacts are outlined below: 1. Improved policy dialogue has been observed in the MERCOSUR as well as at national level in the four active member countries. The introduction of family farming concerns in the political agenda was facilitated and the MERCOSUR countries capacity to address them through policy responses and legal reforms was increased. The renewed commitment at regional level has translated into a variety of reforms and concrete policy actions and at the national level.

1.1 National level: 27

Agriterra underwent a deep financial crisis just before the grant was approved and had to withdraw from the pool of cofinanciers, A further IFAD small grant of USD 120,000 was approved late in 2009 to partially replace the share of Agriterra. 28

Source: EB 2009 /96/R.25 Source: Informe de avance del proyecto “Fortalecimiento de Organizacionees rurales para promover el diálogo sobre politicas en Sudamérica” 30 All the information regarding the impact have been extracted from the a) Summary Sheet on the grant “Public Policy dialogue on family farming and food security in The Southern Cone of Latin America”, b) Informe de avance del proyecto “Fortalecimiento de Organizaciones rurales para promover el dialogo sobre politicas en Sudamerica”, c) EB 2008/94/R.26 and (d) interviews IFAD staff listed at the end of this paper. 31 Source: http://www.reafmercosul.org/reaf/sobre/historico 29

56

 







Special or differentiated policies for family farming have been institutionalized in Argentina and Paraguay. A directorate for rural development was created within the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Uruguay. In order to democratize the resource allocation process at local level, round-tables of dialogue32 were established, including with support from an IFADfinanced project. These bodies periodically gather farmer unions‟ representatives, family farmers, extensionists and representatives of local authorities, to jointly draft proposals and prepare rural development plans, to be issued by the Ministry of Livestock. In Argentina, the national recognition of family farming as a crucial component of the rural economy turned it into one of the government priorities. IFAD has spearheaded institutional change and has helped strengthen the link between policy and practice. As part of the REAF/COPROFAM process, a National Forum for Family Farming (FONAF) was organized and strengthened, which in turn generated internal pressure for an institutional interlocutor for Family Farming. In 2008 this led to the creation of a State Sub-secretariat for Family Farming, which was upgraded to Secretariat for Family Farming and Rural Development in 2009, when the agriculture portfolio became once again a Ministry, after over 30 years of being a Secretariat within the Ministry of Economy. A “monotributo” tax was launched, aimed at formalizing family farmers and make them subject of public policies of both social and economic nature. Agriculture had always been a synonymous of agribusiness in Argentina, but for the first time in the country public policies developed instruments and incentives to increase investments and productivity geared to small and medium-scale agriculture. IFAD funded rural development projects (such as PRODERNEA, PRODERNOA and PRODEAR) became part of this public investment mechanisms. These practices triggered a virtuous circle: results and lessons learned from project implementation fed back into national policy dialogue on issues like agrarian reform, farmers‟ insurance schemes, youth and gender. This, in turn, fed into new project design, as shown by the recently approved PRODERI33. The national FO FAA (Federacion Agraria Argentina) directly benefited from being a member of COPROFAM, accessing training courses and study tours. This enabled FAA to engage in national policy dialogue – as mentioned in the previous point- as well as in the design of IFAD- funded projects, like the PRODERI. Together with other FOs‟ representatives FAA leaders assessed the viability of project mechanisms and development proposals and played a key role in shaping IFAD investment priorities. Also in Brazil and Bolivia Local Farmers‟ Organizations -member of COPROFAM- count on enhanced capacity, which has enabled them to take part in the design and implementation of IFAD projects. In Brazil CONTAG took part in the DomTavora project and in Bolivia local farmers organizations intervened as privileged partners in the design and implementation of ACCESOS (Programa de Inclusión Familias y Comunidades Rurales en Territorio del Valle, Llano y Altiplano) The project was developed out of a bottom-up demand of local communities, based on the lessons learned and improvements of two prior IFAD projects.

1.2  



32

Regional level

The Common Market Group (CMG), MERCOSUR‟s highest executive body, recognized family farming as a specific socio-economic sector, to be addressed by dedicated public policies and budgets. The importance of REAF is now acknowledged in the MERCOSUR, leading to the creation of a fund, called “MERCOSUR Fund for Family Farming”(FAF) (Fondo del MERCOSUR para la Agricultura Familiar) to finance operations directly, ensuring the sustainability of the REAF legacy and deepen and broaden public policies and investments in support to Family Farming. Increased policy dialogue in the framework of a strengthened REAF has periodically brought issues of concern for family farming on the table which were never previously discussed. Priority themes are discussed, solutions identified and proposals made, envisaging their implementation at national level. The voting

Source: http://www.forodelasmesasdedesarrolloruraldecanelones.org/

33

The Inclusive Rural Development Program (PRODERI) has a total cost of about USD 150 M, including about USD 58 M financed with IFAD and Spanish Fund resources. As part of a national policy, the whole project cycle from inception to effectiveness has taken less than a year, compared to an average of 3 to 4 years for IFAD projects in Argentina.

57





rights of farmer representatives in REAF‟s decision-making process are equal to those of government officials. Five Thematic Groups have been created within REAF to implement its agenda and to address specific issues of common interest and concern: (a) agricultural insurance systems for Family Farming; (b) access to rural financing by Family Farmers, (c) access to land and agrarian reform; (d) trade and commerce; (e) rural youth; and (f) gender.34 National governments‟ support to FOs at the provincial, district and community level, using them as implementing partners. IFAD projects in the MERCOSUR countries channel resources directly to FOs to develop and implement with FOs business plans and Territorial Development Plans in marginal areas. On the basis of these plans, financial resources are transferred to communities and/or FOs mainly for income-generating activities, but also for community strengthening and local organizations‟ capacity building.

1.3

At international level, the experience of REAF is widely acknowledged as a model for broader dissemination, replication and upscaling. South-south cooperation initiatives have started with efforts made to replicate the model in Central America35 and in South Africa. In 2008, IFAD covered the travel costs of a group of South African ministry staff from Land Affairs to attend the bi-annual REAF assembly in Brazil. The South African counterparts, who had expressed interest in policies on agrarian reform, joined a study tour to see the Brazilian experience from IFAD-financed Dom Helder Camara project supporting Agrarian reform settlements in the arid North-east region. Two years later, the bi-annual REAF assembly was attended not only by South African delegates but also by government representatives from Botswana and Mozambique, as well as academics from India and China. In 2011, the South African government requested – for the first time ever - a loan from IFAD to support its family farmers. 2. Greater involvement of women and youth in decision-making processes and access to project benefits. Thematic groups on women and youth were created within REAF, as a follow up to a FAFO recommendation, triggering policy debate on issues of gender and age-based equality in rural development, and leading to initiatives taken up at the national level. 



34 35

36 37

MERCOSUR Mujeres is the specialized committee addressing issues of rural development and women in family farming. Strengthening relationships and coordination with REAF is listed as one of its strategic areas of action in the workplan. The cooperation between REAF and MERCOSUR Mujeres has led to several positive actions, including enabling access to credit and other rural finance services by single holder female farmers in Paraguay. The government of Paraguay has allocated USD 1 million of its 2012 national budget to support women‟s access to rural finance services. 36 REAF Joven (REAF youth) is a specialized group in MERCOSUR that advocates for the integration of rural youth considerations in rural development policies. The young population of rural areas in the region has been publically recognized as a driving force of rural development, affected by rural unemployment and ruralurban migration. In the framework of the last IFAD grant, REAF has actively worked to increase attention to the particular needs of rural youth in public policy design, through enhancing awareness and fostering dialogue across its members. Meanwhile, capacity development for rural youth organizations has been provided to enable their active participation in the dialogue that concerns them.37Moreover, all IFAD-financed projects in the MERCOSUR region dedicate special attention to youth through capacity building, technical assistance and financing of business plans.

Source: Annex II EB 2008/94/R.26. Page 8 and the assessment ( 2007) Insert Central American Policy Dialogue Platform*

http://www.mercosurmujeres.org/es/boletin-bo31 www.Reafjoven.ar.com

58

3.

There is ample evidence to sustain that increased policy dialogue has translated into national level results in terms of empowerment of poor rural smallholders. COPROFAM has been catalytic in raising family farmers‟ visibility in the region and in increasing both the recognition of their organizations as stakeholders in agricultural policy making and their capacity to influence them constructively: 





   



II.

Political and legal recognition has resulted from increased attention to the importance of family farming in the regional economy. Family farming is now high on national and regional political agendas and considered as key for achieving food security. REAF has contributed to increasing FF visibility, supporting the prioritization of dedicated public policies and investments. in the light of the traditional political and economic influence of large scale commercial farming in the region, the steady promotion of family farming as a model of rural development can be considered as a great achievement for the MERCOSUR countries. Legal reforms. Registers of family farmers were introduced in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay where they were not previously in place. REAF has contributed to the policy debate on land tenure and use in Argentina as well as the trade facilitation instruments introduced for family farm products in the region. Support to Farmers’ Organizations activities. In Chile the Grant helped strengthen the engagement of the national umbrella organization Movimiento Unitario Campesino y Etnias de Chile (MUSECH) with the government, through organizing several international events, including a workshop on the integration of family farming and a seminar on trade, bringing together representatives from governments and FOs. Enhanced knowledge on FOs issues. Thanks to its increased technical capacity, COPROFAM undertook a study to present policy proposals for combating hunger in rural areas. Stronger agency. Small-scale producers in MERCOSUR member and associate member countries are now playing a leading role in their own development.38 Continuous dialogue: Policy dialogue between FOs and governments has been institutionalized, with REAF (and FAF) providing a permanent vehicle. Facilitated access to financial resources. Paraguay and Argentina have set up regulatory frameworks for insurance schemes for small farmers. In Uruguay, a special programme for rural employees and family producers – also funded by IFAD39 - provides facilitated access to credit and support for a fair process in values chain inclusion. Better market access and integration in value chains. Institutional market schemes have been developed to supply food produced in family farms to schools and hospitals. Based on the Brazilian model, developed under the mandates of President Lula, REAF put forward proposals to expand similar schemes to other countries. IFAD is further supporting FOs - as broker or facilitator - to take advantage of a large range of market opportunities that are arising (especially in Paraguay and Argentina) as a result of the attention shift towards family farming and favorable price and market conditions for food producers.

Lessons learned

The experience examined in this case Study provides ample evidence of the fact that investing in building solid strategic partnerships with FOs for policy dialogue can have far-reaching benefits, not only to the FOs involved, but most importantly to the livelihoods of the IFAD target groups in rural areas. Meanwhile, successful partnership 38 39

IFAD website Source: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/URural/inicio.html

59

initiatives, such as this one, are of great value to IFAD as an international financial institution: (a) in terms of increasing its knowledge of best practices and (b) in providing models that can be replicated and upscaled. Some key ingredients of success can be identified in the COPROFM/REAF example, which are highlighted here as lessons learned.  IFAD’s two-pronged regional approach to enhancing the capacity of FOs (COMPROFAM) on the one hand and strengthening policy dialogue on the other, was instrumental in achieving wide-ranging results both at regional and at national levels. Importantly, synergies and complementarities were fostered between the two, so as to ensure that policies turned into practice and impact became visible on the ground.  IFAD’s role as a neutral broker throughout the entire partnership process has had a crucial role in instilling trust and credibility as well as in promoting ownership. As presented, IFAD has been in the lead of the policy dialogue process in the context of REAF, but has always played the role of facilitator. IFAD may have influenced decisions on what topics to include in the agenda but it was never a participant in the debate or the decision making, thus ensuring local ownership of the debate and subsequent policy formulation process.  The exit strategy employed allowed for a progressive redirection of Grant funds to specific thematic areas relevant to family farming, while in parallel, MERCOSUR was taking over the funding of REAF under a new name. This resulted in the institutionalization of REAF‟s mandate and function as a permanent vehicle for policy dialogue in the region.  Continuity of Grant management on the part of dedicated IFAD staff was instrumental in providing regular supports, backstopping and timely follow up to the process.  The upscaling potential of this experience was recognized and promoted actively both by IFAD managers from LAC and other regions and by MERCOSUR members. The resulting South-South cooperation initiative mentioned above – supported actively by Brazil – have been encouraging and may require corporate action on the part of IFAD to pursue them actively, involving the regional divisions concerned.  Challenge: A major challenge remains in translating policy dialogue into concrete decisions by the involved governments to direct investments of an adequate magnitude to support family farming. Many IFAD-financed investment projects have been instrumental to this goal in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. However, there is still room for improvement, for instance in the area of institutional markets (compras públicas).

60

People consulted In preparation of this Case Study, interviews were held, between 16-30 November 2011, with the following IFAD staff:  Paolo Silveri, CPM for Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and Grant Manager for REAF and COPROFAM.  Pablo Glikmann, Former CPM for Paraguay and Uruguay and initiator of the REAF initiative.  Jakob Tuborgh, Associate CPM for the Southern Cone Sub-regional Team, LAC  Ladislao Rubio, CPM for Nicaragua and Grant Manager for Central America Platform for Policy Dialogue, inspired by REAF  Ivan Cossío, CPM for Brazil and Chile

Documents and websites consulted Documents:         





IFAD “An assessment of the strengthening the participation of small farmers’ organization in policy dialogue within the commission on family farming of the MERCOSUR grant” December 2007 IFAD “President’s report on proposed grants under the global/regional grants window to non-CGIAR-supported international centres”. EB 2008/94/R.26, July 2008 IFAD. Design document for the new grant: “Public policy dialogue on family farming and food security in the Southern one of Latin America”, 2011. IFAD EB 2009 /96/R.25 IFAD, Progress report of the Project “Fortalecimiento de Organizaciones rurales para promover el dialogo sobre politicas en Sudamerica entre FIDA y COPROFAM” N 1109, 2010 IFAD, Summary Sheet on the grant “Public Policy dialogue on family farming and food security in The Southern Cone of Latin America” IFAD “Federal Republic of Brazil. Country strategic opportunities programme” EB 2008/94/R.9/Rev.1, September 2008 IFAD “Design document. Strengthening the participation of small farmers’ organizations in policy dialogue within the MERCOSUR” June 2005 IFAD “Report and recommendation of the president to the executive board on a proposed grant under the global/regional grants window to the commission on family farming of the MERCOSUR for the strengthening of the participation of small farmers’ organizations in policy dialogue within the commission on family farming of MERCOSUR” , September 2005 IFAD“Examen interned e terminacion del proyecto: Fortalecimiento de la Participación de Organizaciones de Pequeños Agricultores en el Diálogo sobre Políticas de la Reunión Especializada de Agricultura Familiar (REAF) del MERCOSUR” 2009 IFAD. Design document of the small grant: “Strengthening rural organizations for policy dialogue in South America” 2008

Websites:       

IFAD website www.ifad.org REAF website http://www.reafmercosul.org/r COPROFAM website http://www.coprofam.org http://www.forodelasmesasdedesarrolloruraldecanelones.org/ http://www.mercosurmujeres.org/es/boletin-bo31 www.Reafjoven.ar.com http://www.mgap.gub.uy/URural/inicio.html

61

Annex:

Country

Direct support to National FOs (Grants) National Programs Amount FO of direct received support 20102011

Involvement in implementation of ongoing projects (designed in 2006-2009)

Involvement in the design of new projects (2010-2011)

South America (main regional partner COPROFAM, some support to LVC South America) Argentina FAA Coprofam Local FOs FAA + local FOS Bolivia CIOEC Coprofam FUPOCH and other local FOs of Chuquisaca and Yamparaez Brazil CONTAG Coprofam FTR Sergipe Chile MUCECH, Coprofam Voz del campo Colombia Local FOs Ecuador CANE + FECONA APROCANE + + FECAE UNORCAC + +FEDARPOM + UCASAJ + COPCAVIC FUNORSAL+… +FECONIC +…. Paraguay ONAC, Coprofam no UAN Peru CCP Coprofam Uruguay CNFR, Coprofam xxxxx IPL, AMRU, ACU Venezuela No (IPs)

62

Involvement in new COSOP (2010-2011)

Ranking of overall IFADFOs partnership during 20102011 (0 to 3)

3 2

2 1

1 2

1 1 2

0

APPENDIX 5 Case Study Central America: Regional Program for Rural Dialogue (PDRR) I. Background and evolution of the partnership with IFAD The challenges posed by the negotiations for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) triggered the need to strengthen Central American governments‟ and small-scale producers‟ capacity to participate in trade negotiations 40. Capacities were particularly weak in defining polices for the recognition and support of family farming.41 In the trade integration process, it became important to support the identification of policy measures and to reduce or mitigate possible negative effects, while at the same time, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the CAFTA treaty. Discussions on the possibility of establishing a platform for policy dialogue on family farming in the region started between 2005 and 2006. The aim was to engage both government representatives and small-scale farmer organizations in an improved policy dialogue focused on rural development and poverty reduction in the framework of the economic integration process. IFAD and the Regional Unit for Technical Assistance (RUTA) launched a study to identify potential organizations that might be interested in getting involved in such a process. As a result, a preliminary meeting in Costa Rica was held in September 2006, gathering interested Farmer Organizations (FOs), during which an agreement was signed, establishing a platform of regional dialogue on trade and territorial development. The agreement led a Grant Proposal developed with the support of RUTA and submitted in 2007 to IFAD for funding. Map of Central America The experience of REAF in MERCOSUR had served as a model of how a politically neutral platform could be designed to ensure equitable participation in the development of a shared policy agenda42 between government and FOs. The Grant proposal incorporated the good practices and lessons learned from REAF, especially in the areas of project design in support of small-farmers, knowledge generation and mechanisms of participation in political decisionmaking.43

40

EB 2006 /89/R34 Annex I EB 2006/89/R.34 42 Informe de terminación, October 2010, #11,12,13 (for paragraph 2 3 4) 43 Encuentro REAF DRR 41

63

III.

The Programme

A Grant of USD 800,000 was approved in 2007, to fund the three-year “Programme of regional Rural dialogue” (PDRR), involving the governments of Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador, together with a total of 17 FOs. The overall goal of the PDRR was to improve policies for smallholder agriculture, so to foster inclusive social and economic development of the rural poor at national and regional levels. The purpose was to create a formal platform for policy dialogue between organizations of small-scale farmers and national governments. The promotion of greater interaction between them was expected to result in the development of a common agenda, the establishment of networks and the improvement of policy dialogue on trade liberalization, favoring the inclusion of family farmers and the rural poor in the political, social and commercial process of regional integration. Activities focused on strengthening the capacities FOs and governments to engage effectively and constructively in policy dialogue and to define proposals, measures and tools to implement relevant programmes. The Costa Rica-based NGO, “International Centre of Human Development” (CIDH), was selected to be the Grant recipient and implementing partner, on the basis of its considerable experience in team-work with rural organizations and field of policy dialogue, including with CAFTA. Since its establishment in 1997, CIDH 44 had developed technical capacity for mediation, acting as a neutral broker in supporting consensus building with the programme‟s stakeholders. In a highly politicized environment, this avoided any political links to be associated with PDRR and contributed greatly to the Programme‟s credibility.

IV. Impact of the IFAD-FO partnership on smallholder farming communities Support to regional policy dialogue had positive impact at all levels as outlined below: At the international level, the PDRR strengthened policy dialogue, developing links with REAF of MERCOSUR. As mentioned, the example of REAF supported the design of the PDRR programme itself and a PDRR delegation participated twice in its sessions, once in Uruguay once in Argentina. REAF representatives also took part in a PDRR meeting in Costa Rica to discuss family farming policies, practices developed and lessons learned from both regional processes.45 At the regional level, the activities of the programme strengthened the capacity of both FOs and governments across Central America, enabling them to carry out better analysis of the agricultural sector, as well as to intervene in the policy agenda and design proposals that take into account the concerns of family farmers. To that extent, training and sector studies were carried out and discussed in the PDRR sessions46. The “Centro American Agricultural Council” (CAC) of the Inter-American System of Integration (SICA) participated in the PDRR, recognizing it as the space to meet and discuss with small farmers in the region. 47 In August 2009, CAC formally recognized the importance of dialogue with rural organizations in regional integration and entered into a cooperation with the PDRR to formulate a joint Plan of Action for Family Farming in Central America.48 It is worth mentioning that the concept of family farming was not present in the FOs and government documents prior to the PDRR.49 The Programme contributed to strengthening relationships between FOs across the 44

Source EB 2006 89 Informe de terminación, October 2010, 46 Informe de terminación, October 2010, 47 Plan de Accion para la Agricultura Familiar en Centroamerica, October 2010 page 2 48 Informe de evaluación; ctobe 2010 p 25 49 Informe de terminación, October 2010, #42 45

64

region, enabling them to identify common interests and to jointly develop their policy agenda vis-a-vis the Central American Agricultural Policy50. The programme enabled FOs to prepare counter-proposals to the Central American Agricultural Policy in the context of regional integration, and facilitated policy engagement with governments at national and regional levels. FOs successfully participated in the definition of a common policy agenda around three main fields of action: (a) regional agricultural policies, (b) trade liberalization, and (c) food sovereignty51. CIDH organized round tables with civil society organizations, governments and the private sector and supported the establishment of the Civil Society Initiative for Central American Integration (ICIC), which participated actively in the analysis and preparation of strategy guidelines to support productive sectors and to identify positive and potentially negative effects of the Dominican Republic- Central America Free Trade Agreement (DRCAFT). At the completion of RDRR in late 2010, an action plan for family farming was developed in a highly participative manner, based on consultations with farmer organizations and government representatives during its design, revision and adoption. The plan is based on a comprehensive diagnostic study of family farming in the region, outlining its economic weight, markets and value chains. Relevant policies, institutions and programmes are presented, identifying good practices of support to family farming. On the basis of this diagnosis, the plan of action calls for support family farming with targeted actions, aimed at integrating rural poor populations in the national and regional development process. The plan also calls for the need to enhance dialogue among stakeholders and to further build the capacities to address family farmers‟ needs through improved policies and interventions.52 The importance of family farming in achieving food security was advocated successfully by PDRR, making links to the national level.53 Improved regional policy dialogue helped to place rural development and family farming at the centre of the member governments‟ political agenda. National fora of dialogue called ”mesas nacionales” were established in each country, strengthening the dialogue on public policies across FOs, national and local authorities. These fora facilitated the joint definition of policy options in support of family farming and , importantly, played a key role in gaining the trust of the national authorities involved, providing legitimacy to the process.54 A good example is that of El Salvador, where - in the context of PDRR - FOs and the government entered into a dialogue process for the first time ever.55 Although PDRR was not able to extensively translate policies and proposals into concrete actions at the national level, several important achievements have been observed over these three years in terms of greater involvement of FOs in policy debate and empowerment of their members. 56 Extensive work was carried out on information gathering on relevant policies, strategies and agreements in Central America, such as the DR-CAFTA, Central Amerincan Livestock and Farming Policy (PACA), the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), the EU trade agreement and the Strategy for Rural Territorial Development. This information on policies directly and indirectly concerning family farming was shared with PDRR participants and eventually fed into the development of proposals and policy documents57. PDRR has (directly or indirectly) brought about positive changes in the region‟s countrylevel pro-poor rural development initiatives. The main changes noted since 2006 are outlined below: 50

FAFO Partnership in progress 2008-2009

51

FAO Partnership in progress 2008-2009 http://www.ruta.org/Documentos-CD/Plan%20de%20Accion%20de%20AF/PDF/PlanAccionAF-2010-2011.pdf 53 Informe de terminación, October 2010, #126 54 Informe de terminación, October 2010, #48 55 FAFO Partnership in progress 2008-2009 56 Ida writeups 57 Informe de terminación, October 2010 52

65

  

 

Governments are more willing to take investment loans to support rural poverty alleviation; Ministers of Agriculture increasingly decide to finance FOs directly as implementers of projects or as providers of technical assistance services. In a new project in Honduras, (Sustainable Rural Development Programme for the Southern Region (Emprende Sur), FOs are for the first time participating in the project‟s Steering Committee, alongside the government, and take active part in work planning and budget approval. In Guatemala and El Salvador, FOs are involved as service providers in all new IFAD projects. In El Salvador, a national council for agricultural development was established with the participation of the agricultural and livestock sector, universities and research centers. The council analyzed the national development plan, providing all FOs with technical insight in its consequences for family farming.

In what concerns cooperation with international organizations, the definition of rural development policies and the agreements developed in the framework of PDRR generated a favorable context for the rural sector as a whole and made IFAD investment projects in the region more efficient and effective58. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has recognized the efforts made by FOs in the framework of the PDRR, acknowledging the important results achieved. In order to further support the implementation of activities, FAO provided an additional funding of US$105.500 in 2010 to complement the IFAD grant resources to CIDH.

V.

Conclusions

The experience examined in this Case Study provides ample evidence of positive impact on knowledge generation and dissemination around family farming concepts in a region where such concepts were new and where farmer organizations have a tradition of being highly politicized. Nevertheless, it is presently difficult to establish a link between positive achievements in support of family farmers at country level and PDRR‟s influence. Positive spillovers have been noted in terms of strengthening the design and implementation of IFAD projects in the countries, like in the case of Emprende Sur in Honduras, while knowledge generation at regional level was effectively disseminated at country level. Compared to REAF however, which acted as a model for regional policy dialogue, the Central America initiative has, so far, had less tangible impact at the country level. There are various reasons for this, including: (a) the more challenging economic conditions of the countries in Central America compared to the Southern Cone, (b) SICA being weaker and less influential than MERCOSUR; (c) the presence of major government shifts – particularly in El Salvador and Honduras – since 2006; d) the shorter life of the PDRR programme (operative since 2007) compared to REAF (e) the absence in the Central American region of a large driving force for rural poverty reduction, such as Brazil. Hence, the platforms of dialogue established under PDRR will require further support to be strengthened and eventually be institutionalized under SICA. Sustainability. During the last PDRR General Assembly in October 2010 59, PDRR‟s FO members confirmed the relevance of sustaining a neutral platform for regional dialogue on rural development. Individual PDRR stakeholders were keen to maintain their network to share knowledge, foster debate and submit policy proposals. To this extent, a new Grant proposal for IFAD was been drafted and attached to the last PDRR progress report60. Improved dialogue in the Region has raised country-level awareness around issues of equitable growth, sustainable development and good governance in rural contexts. At the level of regional policy, CAC drafted a Central-American strategy for territorial rural development for 2010-2030 (ECADERT), highlighting the principles 58

Informe de terminación, October 2010, #81 Plan de Accion para la Agricultura Familiar en Centroamerica, October 2010 page 2 60 http://www.ruta.org/Documentos-CD/Plan%20de%20Accion%20de%20AF/PDF/PlanAccionAF-2010-2011.pdf 59

66

promoted by PDRR, such as governance for sustainable rural development, knowledge development for small farmers and rural social networks61.

61

Informe de terminación, October 2010, 29 and others

67

People Interviewed and Documents reviewed Interviewed:  Ladislao Rubio, CPM for Nicaragua and Grant Manager of the Programme  Enrique Murguia, CPM for Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico Documents Reviewed: o IFAD “Informe de Evaluación del Programa de Diálogo Regional Rural”, October 2010 o PDRR – SECAC “Plan de Accion para la Agricultura Familiar en Centroamerica” October 2010 o IFAD “President’s report on proposed grants under the global/regional grants window to non-CGIAR supported international centres” November 2006 o IFAD ”IFAD and Farmers’ Organizations Partnership in progress 20082009”, 2010 o IFAD “Informe de terminación” October 2010 o IFAD “Memorias encuentro REAF PDRR” 2008

68

APPENDIX 6

Le FIDA et les OP en Guinée : un partenariat structurant et durable Le Programme national d‟appui aux acteurs des filières agricoles (PNAAFA) a été conçu en 2008 sur la base de la valorisation des diverses expériences de partenariat avec les organisations paysannes (OP) guinéennes. Elle est caractérisée par une démarche originale et innovante qui permet aux OP de s‟impliquer sur tout le processus du projet. Elle concilie deux approches concomitantes : (i) une responsabilisation contractuelle des OP dans la mise en œuvre des activités et (ii) un renforcement de capacités progressif. L‟originalité du PNAAFA vient du fait qu‟il vise en même temps le développement des filières et le renforcement des capacités des OP.

Une forte dynamique organisationnelle en perpétuelle mutation Depuis les années 90, les OP guinéennes se sont structurées sur la base d‟un long processus. Elles ont cherché à jouer un rôle de plus en plus prépondérant dans les services à apporter à leurs membres mais aussi dans la négociation avec l‟Etat et les partenaires techniques et financiers comme le Fonds international du développement agricole (FIDA). Elles sont structurées de la base au sommet. Au niveau national, on trouve la Confédération nationale des organisations paysannes de Guinée (CNOP-G) qui a une représentativité et une légitimité lui permettant de s‟impliquer dans les négociations au niveau national. Les organisations membres de la CNOP-G sont réparties sur l‟ensemble du pays avec des capacités et des niveaux de représentativité très divers. La CNOP-G contribue fortement à la restructuration du paysage des OP, notamment avec l‟émergence et la consolidation, sur l‟ensemble du territoire, de fédérations structurées autour de filières porteuses à l‟image de la Fédération des paysans du Fouta Djalon (FPFD), structurée autour de la filière pomme de terre. Elle gère différents programmes financés par les principaux bailleurs de fonds internationaux. Elle participe activement aux débats sur les politiques nationales concernant les producteurs. Enfin, elle a été signataire du pacte du Programme national d‟investissement agricole (PNIA) élaboré dans le cadre de la politique agricole de la CEDEAO (CAADP/ECOWAP) en avril 2010.

La Confédération nationale des organisations paysannes de Guinée (CNOP-G) Créée en mai 2000, sur l‟initiative des quatre (4) grandes fédérations régionales, la CNOP-G fédère aujourd‟hui 15 fédérations avec 191 unions fédérées et six (6) unions non fédérées, plus de 18 000 groupements de base, pour un effectif global de 480 000 membres. Dirigée par une assemblée générale (AG) qui délègue une partie de ses prérogatives à un conseil d‟administration de sept (7) membres élus en AG. Elle a mis en place quatre (4) représentations régionales composées d‟élus et de techniciens. L‟objectif à long terme de la CNOP-G est d‟édifier un mouvement paysan national crédible porteur de la promotion socio-économique durable des exploitations familiales et des producteurs agricoles à travers une agriculture paysanne bien insérée dans le contexte du développement national, sous-régional et international. Elle veut ainsi permettre aux organisations paysannes de Guinée de contribuer à la définition d‟une vision claire de l‟agriculture guinéenne et d‟une politique agricole cohérente centrée sur les exploitations familiales agricoles. BP 5381 Conakry / Tél : 00224 60 30 19 41 / 60 57 16 74 / Email : [email protected] / Site web : http://www.erails.net/GN/cnop/cnop/Accueil/

69

Le FIDA, une présence constante et un partenariat évolutif Le FIDA intervient en Guinée depuis 1980. Il a financé 12 projets et le montant de son aide pour la période 1980-2008 s'élève à 159,16 millions d'USD, dont 18,84 millions d'USD sous forme de dons. Neuf (9) projets ont été clôturés et trois (3) sont actuellement en cours (voir carte ci-dessous). L‟implication des OP dans les projets du FIDA a connu une évolution importante.

Des projets classiques aux projets plus participatifs Le Programme national d‟appui aux acteurs des filières agricoles (PNAAFA) est né de la restructuration d‟un ancien projet du FIDA, le Projet de développement agricole durable en Guinée Forestière (PRODAD-GF), mis en place en 2003 entre le FIDA et le Gouvernement de la République de Guinée. La restructuration du PRODAD-GF en PNAAFA a pris en compte une nouvelle orientation du FIDA marquée par la revue du portefeuille de la Guinée en septembre 2007 et la préparation du nouveau cadre stratégique d‟intervention en Guinée (COSOP). L'examen du portefeuille et les consultations avec les OP ont permis de tirer des enseignement sur l‟efficacité de la mise en œuvre et la performance de l‟exécution du programme-pays et sur la nécessité de revoir l‟approche classique de mise en œuvre des projets et de concevoir un modèle plus participatif incluant les OP dans l‟ensemble du processus. Les nouvelles orientations du FIDA en Guinée ont été influencées également par une prise de conscience des capacités de gestion des OP et de leurs expérience dans la mise en œuvre d‟une série de projets financés par le FIDA mais aussi d‟autres partenaires de la CNOP-G tels que la Banque Mondiale, l‟Agence française de développement et l‟Union Européenne.

Un COSOP qui prend en compte les préoccupations des OP Le dernier Programme d‟options stratégiques pour le pays (COSOP) a été élaboré pour la période 2009-2014. Son objectif est de contribuer à la mise en place des bases économiques d‟un développement agricole durable et à renforcer la capacité des ruraux pauvres en vue d‟une meilleure gouvernance locale. Il a trois (3) objectifs stratégiques (OS) dont le second touche particulièrement les préoccupations des organisations paysannes : renforcer l‟accès des petits producteurs à des services d‟appui à la production efficaces et à des marchés de produits et d‟intrants agricoles transparents et concurrentiels pour les filières agricoles ciblées. La particularité du partenariat entre les OP et le FIDA en Guinée mérite qu‟on s‟y attarde dans le cadre du PNAAFA.

Le PNAAFA, un projet participatif sur les filières agricoles Le Programme national d‟appui aux acteurs des filières agricoles (PNAAFA) est en vigueur depuis le 16 décembre 2009, date de l‟amendement de l‟Accord de Prêt 589-GN restructurant l‟ancien projet PRODAD-GF en PNAAFA. Il est financé par le FIDA à travers le prêt 589-GN et les dons DSF 8064-GN et DSF 8091-GN,. La durabilité des interventions du PNAAFA sera assurée par son approche innovatrice de mise en œuvre impliquant les OP, à tous les niveaux. Approche d‟ailleurs saluée par les OP lors du lancement du projet en mai 2011.

70

"Notre vœu le plus cher, la CNOP-G, maître d’œuvre dans les projets" "La CNOP-G est particulièrement heureuse aujourd’hui parce que son vœu le plus cher est entrain d’être réalisé à travers son implication comme maître d’œuvre dans la plupart des projets ou programmes en cours. Depuis 2008, la CNOP-G a été largement impliquée dans la formulation du PNAAFA à travers les missions d’experts qui séjournaient en Guinée. Jusqu’à ce jour, notre structure a maintenu les contacts professionnels avec toutes les équipes du FIDA en séjour en Guinée y compris les chargés de portefeuille. Nous sommes reconnaissants pour cet égard porté à notre structure et sommes convaincus que cette collaboration accrue est un gage de réussite de ce futur programme. En effet, le programme est destiné à renforcer la professionnalisation des structures paysannes afin d’en faire de vraies acteurs de filières agricoles, capables d’améliorer les services rendus à leurs membres. Il est primordial et stratégique que les préoccupations de ces acteurs sur le terrain soient prises en compte dès la formulation. Nous sommes par conséquent reconnaissants au FIDA d’avoir une démarche innovante et qui change avec la formulation classique des projets". Extraits de l’allocution du Président de la CNOP-G, Moussa para DIALLO, lors de l’atelier de démarrage du PNAAFA, en mai 2011, à Conakry (Guinée)

Un dispositif de mise en œuvre articulé sur les OP Certaines spécificités méritent d‟être relevées dans la manière dont les OP seront impliquées dans le dispositif de mise en œuvre du PNAAFA.

Une amélioration de la mise en œuvre des projets par la contractualisation Dans le projet, toute la composante A est consacrée à l‟appui aux OP et la souscomposante A1 est consacrée à l‟appui institutionnel aux OP. Une convention annuelle lie la CNOP-G et l‟Unité nationale de coordination du projet (UNC). Elle décrit le cadre de collaboration et les responsabilités des parties prenantes. La CNOP-G est en charge de faciliter également la mise en œuvre des activités économiques constituant la souscomposante A2 du projet. Le résultat attendu de la sous-composante A1 est une performance institutionnelle améliorée de la CNOP-G, des fédérations, des unions et des groupements de base.

Une responsabilisation institutionnelles des OP

liées

aux

capacités

Dans la sous-composante A2, les activités liées aux filières agricoles des Plans d‟orientation et d‟action (POA) des fédérations seront prises en charge par le projet. Cependant, un diagnostic basé sur des critères spécifiques a montré que toutes les fédérations n‟ont pas les mêmes capacités. Celles, comme la Fédération des paysans du Fouta Djalon (FPFD) classée de niveau de maturité 4 (les plus performantes) peuvent assurer la maîtrise d‟ouvrage déléguée. Cependant, celles qui sont à un niveau de maturité inférieur à 4, sont accompagnées dans la mise en œuvre de leurs activités par la représentation régionale de la CNOP-G et de l‟Unité régionale de coordination (URC). Des conventions annuelles et des contrats de prestations de services lieront le PNAAFA et les représentations nationale et régionales de la CNOP-G pour la facilitation de la planification, de la mise en œuvre et du suivi des activités au niveau des fédérations.

Une élaboration participative des PTBA La représentation régionale de la CNOP-G va faciliter la mise en place d‟outils de planification concertée à travers les Conseils agricoles et régionaux (CAR). Des rencontres permettront de faciliter l‟élaboration des programmes de travail et budget annuels (PTBA) avec une remontée d‟informations de la base au sommet. Elles permettront aussi d‟évaluer les résultats de façon participative.

71

Améliorer les services rendus par les OP à leurs membres Au-delà de l‟appui institutionnel, les fédérations développent des capacités à rendre des services à leurs membres et progressivement le transfert de responsabilités se fera à leur niveau.

La valeur ajoutée de la démarche d’élaboration et de mise en œuvre Plusieurs éléments innovant sont à signaler dans la démarche. Une approche participative et progressive A travers le PNAAFA, le FIDA appuie une émergence forte des OP dans les filières agricoles. Le programme a démarré en Guinée Forestière et en Moyenne Guinée et il s‟est étendu à la Haute Guinée en janvier 2011. Le genre et les jeunes sont intégrés dans l‟approche et liés aux stratégies des OP notamment à travers un appui spécifique au Collège des femmes de la CNOP-G. Les approches et procédures du PNAAFA, telles que conçues en 2008, ont été affinées en juillet 2011, en occasion de la formulation de l‟extension du PNAAFA en Haute Guinée, grâce à une analyse participative de la phase de démarrage avec les OP et l‟équipe du projet. Ces acquis en termes de simplification des mécanismes de planification et de mise en œuvre ont déjà été appliqués directement à l‟ensemble du Programme national et concernent principalement Vu son caractère innovateur et progressif, le concept du PNAAFA est destiné à une évolution continue : le vrai terrain d‟apprentissage est la mise en œuvre et des ajustements et adaptations seront nécessaires pour résoudre les problèmes qui seront rencontrés en cours de route, et pour faire face au changement dans les contextes sociaux, économique et politique.

Un double impact opérationnel et institutionnel du national au local A travers le financement des Plans d‟orientation et d‟action (POA) des fédérations, le projet appuie simultanément le renforcement institutionnel et les activités économiques des unions et des fédérations. Ainsi, au niveau national, le partenariat contribue à une meilleure structuration des OP grâce notamment à l‟amélioration de l‟articulation du sommet à la base et vice-versa. Il permet aussi aux OP d‟être plus performantes dans les services rendus à leurs membres. Cette double dimension fait souvent défaut dans l‟implication des OP. En effet, pour multiples raisons, il n‟est pas rare de voir des projets y compris ceux du FIDA être menés sur le plan opérationnel avec des OP à la base sans qu‟il y ait une articulation avec des fédérations qui agissent au niveau national notamment à travers des activités de plaidoyer et de lobby. Ici l‟articulation peut faciliter et améliorer le dialogue politique d‟autant plus qu‟il existe un appui institutionnel aux services publics dans la composante B du projet. Enfin, le partenariat du FIDA avec la CNOP-G et ses membres, qui sont des structures pérennes représentatives et articulées à une base paysanne offre plus de garantie de pérennisation des réalisations du PNAAFA. Sources :  FIDA, République de Guinée Programme d‟options stratégiques pour le pays, décembre 2008, 45 p.  CNOP-G, Discours du Président de la CNOP-G à l‟ouverture de l‟atelier de lancement du PNAAFA à Conakry, mai 2011, 4 p.  FIDA, Programme national d‟appui aux acteurs des filières agricoles (PNAAFA), Volet "Haute Guinée", Document de conception de programme, Rapports principal et annexes, Octobre 2011, 115 p.



Interview du CPM, Sara Kouakou, novembre 2011.

72

APPENDIX 7

Le PSAOP au Sénégal : Une maîtrise d’ouvrage déléguée paysanne Le Programme des Services Agricoles et Organisations de Producteurs (PSAOP) est un projet de couverture nationale. Elle a connu deux phases. La phase 1 qui est allée de 2000 à 2005 avait pour objectif de reformer le cadre institutionnel et l‟environnement des services agricoles, tout en appuyant l‟habilitation des organisations de producteurs. L‟objectif de développement de la deuxième phase (2006/2010), cofinancée par le FIDA, était de renforcer l‟accès des petits producteurs aux services et innovations agricoles durables et diversifiées, en vue d‟accroître la productivité agricole et de renforcer la sécurité alimentaire des ménages. La composante C de la phase 2, « l’appui aux Organisations de Producteurs », a été menée avec une forte empreinte des OP en lien avec leurs visions et leurs pratiques.

L’appui aux OP, un axe stratégique La phase 1 du PSAOP a contribué de manière efficace à l‟habilitation des organisations de producteurs, à mettre en place des services agricoles déconcentrés et régis par la demande dans une partie des zones rurales du Sénégal, ainsi qu‟au renforcement de leur réactivité et de leur responsabilité envers les producteurs. Le résultat général de la première phase a été jugé satisfaisant par le rapport de fin d‟exécution (ICR, Rapport n° 35062). En effet, le PSAOP1 a contribué de manière efficace à l‟habilitation des organisations de producteurs, à mettre en place des services agricoles décentralisés et régis par la demande dans une partie des zones rurales du Sénégal, ainsi qu‟au renforcement de leur réactivité et de leur responsabilité envers les producteurs. La phase 2 cofinancée par le FIDA, prend en compte les enseignements tirés et l‟évolution du contexte depuis l‟élaboration initiale du PSAOP en 1999. Pour mettre en exergue les principales avancées du projet et améliorer la souplesse dans l‟allocation des ressources, les activités ont été regroupées en quatre composantes principales, chacune se concentrant sur l‟un des quatre thèmes principaux : A) recherche agricole, B) services de consultation, C) organisations de producteurs, et D) coordination sectorielle. La composante C « Appui aux Organisations de Producteurs » a bénéficié de 8,3 millions USD, dont 5,0 USD par l‟IDA et 3,0 millions de dollars par le FIDA. Elle a pour objectif principal de renforcer les capacités des organisations de producteurs aux niveaux local, régional et national à défendre les intérêts des exploitations familiales et à faciliter à ces dernières l’accès à des services techniques et économiques leur permettant d’accroître durablement leurs productions, leur sécurité alimentaire et leurs revenus. Sa mise en œuvre a été confiée à L‟association Sénégalaise pour la Promotion du Développement à la Base (ASPRODEB).

Un dispositif de mise en œuvre articulé sur les OP Les OP jouent un rôle prééminent dans la composante C et ceci à plusieurs niveaux.

73

L’ASPRODEB, une agence d’exécution des projets liés aux OP L‟évaluation du PSAOP1 a donné des résultats très favorables vis-à-vis-à-vis de l‟ASPRODEB qui avait déjà été responsabilisée dans la gestion des programmes liés aux OP.

L’association Sénégalaise pour la Promotion du Développement à la Base (ASPRODEB) L‟association Sénégalaise pour la Promotion du Développement à la Base (ASPRODEB) est créée en 1995 par des organisations de producteurs agricoles autonomes et agréée par l‟Etat Sénégalais pour exécuter des projets publics en faveur du monde rural. Elle a obtenu sa reconnaissance juridique en qualité en 1997 et elle est composée de 29 organisations dont l‟APCR (Association des Présidents de Communautés Rurales). C‟est un outil qui fournit aux Organisations Paysannes les services de renforcement de capacités techniques et organisationnelles, de gestion financière et d‟appui- conseil. Elle a développé un savoir faire dans son domaine de formulation de projets, de négociation de financement, de gestion et d‟exécution de projets, qui est reconnu par les grands bailleurs de fonds, tels que la Banque Mondiale et le FIDA. Site web : www.asprodeb.org

Un renforcement des capacités des OP, par les OP La composante C « Appui aux Organisations de Producteurs » comporte trois souscomposantes qui sont (1) Renforcement de la représentativité et de l‟inclusion sociale des organisations aux niveaux local et régional ; (2) Participation des OP au dialogue sur les politiques agricoles et rurales ; (3) Renforcement de la maîtrise technique et économique des activités par les exploitations familiales et leurs organisations. La Sous Composante 2 a pour objectif spécifique de renforcer les capacités stratégiques des responsables d‟organisations professionnelles pour leur permettre d‟influer efficacement l‟élaboration des politiques agricoles et rurales et de participer activement à la mise en œuvre des programmes de développement. Elle comporte notamment un volet sur « la formation des responsables professionnels aux niveaux national, régional et local ». Cet objectif correspond à une préoccupation du Conseil National de Concertation et de Coopération des Ruraux (CNCR), l‟organisation faîtière qui a une représentativité et une légitimité reconnue au niveau national. Durant plusieurs années il a mené une réflexion pour mettre en œuvre un programme de formation sur les politiques agricoles, destiné à ses responsables au niveau national, régional et local. Ce sont les résultats de cette réflexion qui ont servi de base à l‟élaboration du programme de formation inscrit dans le PSAOP dans la sous composante « participation des OP au dialogue sur les politiques agricoles et rurales », au bénéfice de l‟ensemble des paysans du Sénégal.

Une mise en œuvre assurée par une OP (la FONGS) Le CNCR a confié à la FONGS le mandat de s‟impliquer fortement dans la définition et la mise en œuvre d'un dispositif de capacitation des leaders du mouvement paysan dans le domaine de l'analyse économique et de l'analyse des politiques agricoles. Ainsi pour le compte du CNCR, la FONGS s‟est impliquée dans une réflexion sur la formation des responsables aux niveaux local, régional et national sur les politiques agricoles. La Fédération des ONG du Sénégal (FONGS) a postulé pour mettre en œuvre la formation dans le cadre de la composante 2 et elle a été retenue en tant maître d‟ouvrage délégué de la formation des responsables paysans au niveau national. La FONGS est une organisation pays généraliste qui a maintenant plus de trente ans d‟expériences dans différents domaines. Elle a toujours fait de la formation un axe stratégique d‟intervention et ambitionne de mettre en place un dispositif de formation au service du mouvement paysan sénégalais, voire ouest-africain et international.

74

La FONGS – Action Paysanne La Fédération des Organisations Non Gouvernementales du Sénégal (FONGS – Action Paysanne) est l‟émanation de 3 000 groupements villageois et touche plus de 2 millions de personnes dont 65 % de femmes. Créée en 1976 sur l‟initiative de 09 leaders d‟associations paysannes, elle a été reconnue officiellement le 12 octobre 1978 comme une organisation à vocation socio-économique sans but lucratif. C‟est un mouvement paysan autonome qui compte aujourd‟hui plus de 150 000 membres actifs regroupés dans 31 associations paysannes de dimensions variées réparties sur l‟ensemble des 11 régions du Sénégal. Son siège est à Thiès, à 70 km de Dakar, où est basée la coordination nationale. Elle est membre fondateur du CNCR. Rue ZI – 01, B.P. 269 Thiès - Sénégal Tél. 33 939 58 58 Fax : 33 951.23.52 Email : [email protected] / Site web : www.fongs.sn Un partenariat structurant

Une formation stratégique de 340 leaders paysans sur les politiques agricoles Sur l‟ensemble du pays, 340 leaders paysans ont été formés : 40 leaders régionaux et nationaux dont au moins 25% de femmes et 300 leaders régionaux et locaux dont au moins 25% de femmes et 10% de jeunes (moins de 35 ans). Les différentes revues et évaluations ont montré que les leaders ont acquis une meilleure compréhension du contexte international, des enjeux nationaux de développement agricole et rural, des contraintes à l‟amélioration des performances des filières et de l‟environnement socioéconomique des exploitations familiales. Ils ont développé des capacités de formulation de proposition et de négociation avec les autres acteurs du développement agricole et rural. L‟implication des responsables des Cadres locaux de concertation (CLCOP) et des cadres régionaux de concertation des ruraux (CRCR) dans les formations a permis d‟élargir la problématique aux enjeux de développement local. La formation est orientée par une approche de développement agricole et rural basée sur la promotion de l’exploitation familiale dans le but : (i) d‟assurer la sécurité alimentaire des familles en affirmant le droit des agriculteurs à se nourrir eux-mêmes ; (ii ) de sauvegarder et de développer l‟emploi en milieu rural, dans l‟agriculture et par la diversification des activités ; (iii) de générer des revenus décents ; (iv) de gérer les ressources naturelles ; (v) de maintenir les solidarités familiales et sociales et les valeurs culturelles qui fondent les sociétés paysannes.

Un dispositif paysan de formation stratégique en construction Plusieurs éléments caractérisent ce dispositif : (i) l‟identification participative des capacités à renforcer ; (ii) l a construction sociale de modules de formation ; (iii) la valorisation de l‟expertise paysanne (formateurs paysans issus des différentes platesformes nationales) ; (iv) une pédagogie originale avec la valorisation conjuguée de l‟expertise paysanne et non paysanne ; (v) la construction d‟un partenariat institutionnel avec les prestataires ; (vi) des impacts visibles en terme de valorisation. L‟enjeu pour les OP est d‟arriver à assurer le renforcement et la pérennité du dispositif.

75

La valeur ajoutée de la démarche d’élaboration et de mise en œuvre Plusieurs particularités sont à relever.

Un renforcement des OP dans leurs capacités à rendre des services aux membres A travers les projets mis en œuvre, l‟ASPRODEB a développé des actions pilotes qui visent à assister les fédérations membres à lever différents défis : production des semences de qualité pour l‟arachide, filière principale du pays, importation de l‟engrais en groupant les besoins des OP rizicoles et autres, contractualisation de la production du haricot vert, recherche de nouveaux marchés pour certains produits comme le lait. Ces actions contribuent à rendre les OP plus efficaces dans la fourniture de services à leurs membres en lien avec le marché. Ces actions se font dans une approche filière qui met les exploitations familiales et les OP de base au centre des initiatives. Aujourd‟hui, après de réels succès sur le renforcement du pouvoir politique des OP et de leurs leaders, l‟ASPRODEB attaque en force un nouveau défi, celui de la maîtrise technique et économique des activités des exploitations agricoles et de leurs OP.

Des résultats probants au niveau local Le PSAOP2 a amélioré l‟accès aux services et conseils agricoles et améliorer la capacité des organisations des producteurs, conduisant ainsi à l‟augmentation de la production agricole. Les faitières assument progressivement les fonctions transversales (approvisionnements groupés en intrants, groupage de la production pour l‟accès au marché, contact avec les clients potentiels, organisation de l‟appui conseil et formation des animateurs et des relais etc.). Toutes les OP ont été formées dans l‟administration des organisations (transparence, obligation de rendre compte et le renouvellement des instances). Les fonctions économiques et de gouvernance sont bien maîtrisées aux différentes échelles des organisations. L‟autonomisation est fortement axée sur la responsabilisation et le renforcement des capacités des producteurs et de leurs organisations. Grâce au partenariat créé et renforcé entre différentes institutions et structures œuvrant dans leurs zones d‟intervention respectives, les projets appuyés par le FIDA ont obtenu des résultats probants La participation des élus locaux à l‟identification des besoins, à la planification des actions et au suivi-évaluation (S&E) ont été des éléments déterminants dans l‟acquisition des résultats. La participation des services d‟appui publics et privés (recherche, conseil) ainsi que des producteurs et de leurs organisations à la définition des thématiques a été le gage de la génération et de la diffusion effective de technologies appropriées répondant aux besoins des producteurs; L‟instauration de partenariats multipartites et pluri-institutionnels et, surtout, la mise en place dans l‟espace rural de cadres permettant les échanges nécessaires ont contribué à renforcer la synergie et la cohérence dans les actions mises en œuvre dans les zones couvertes par les différents projets.

Une certaine amélioration du dialogue politique La mise en œuvre de programmes nationaux, avec des fonds publics a amené les différentes plates-formes nationales à négocier entre elles pour arriver à des consensus. La FONGS a pris en compte la diversité des OP en utilisant une démarche participative dans la mise en œuvre de la formation des leaders. Cela a facilité une meilleure connaissance entre les différentes plates-formes et le programme a joué un rôle fédérateur à travers la mise en place d‟un comité de pilotage qui a intégré l‟ensemble des plates-formes. Mais aussi un comité pédagogique qui a valorisé l‟ensemble des

76

compétences des différentes pates-formes et d‟autres structures non-paysannes. Dans le même temps, dans le cadre de l‟ASPRODEB, les concertations entre OP et avec les autorités publiques pour la gestion de la composante C a amélioré la lecture du paysage organisationnel des OP au niveau national. Il reste cependant vrai que le contexte national n’est pas très favorable au partenariat tripartite FIDA-OP-Etat car les rapports entre les OP et les autorités ne sont pas au beau fixe notamment sur les questions liées à la réforme foncière et la mise en œuvre de la Loi d‟Orientation Agricole votée en 2004.

77

ANNEX 1 - LIST OF COSOPs PRESENTED TO EB IN 2010 AND 2011 AND SURVEY RESULTS

DATA BASE Have Farmers' or Rural Producers' Organizations (FO(s))ͥ been involved or consulted in the formulation of this COSOP?

General information

Specific regional workshops with FO(s)

Participation in multistakeholder Consultations

Membership in CPMT and/or PDTs

Participation in the COSOP validation Workshop

1

1

1

1

1

1

D.R. Congo

1

1

1

Liberia

1

1

Country

WCA

Cote d'Ivoire

WCA WCA WCA

Please provide details on the types and modalities of FO(s) involvement in this COSOP?

Meeting with national preparation team

Region

Nigeria

Have proposals and Is there a specific recommendations - Have there been additional costs for IFAD strategic objective received from FO(s)- incurred from the involvement of FO(s) in addressing FO(s)' been reflected in needs or responding the formulation of this COSOP? the COSOP? to their agenda?

1

1

1

1

1

WCA

Senegal

1

1

WCA

Sierra Leone

1

1

WCA

Benin

1

1

1

ESA

Mozambique

1

1

1

ESA

Zambia

1

1

1

1

APR

China

1

1

1

1

APR

India

1

1

1

APR

Laos

1

1

LAC

Dominican Republic

1

1

NENA

Azerbaijan

1

Normal player (Meeting with national preparation team Special Player (Specific AND/OR Participation in regional workshop with multi-stakeholder FO(s) AND/OR memebership Consultations AND/OR in CPMts and/or PDTs) Participation in the COSOP validation Workshop)

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

Please estimate the amount: USD

Other

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Participation in monitoring or knowledge sharing exercises

1

1

1

Other

Difficulty encountered

1

1

Understanding the poverty problematic

Identification of target groups

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Membership in the CPMT or steering committee

1

50000

1

1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Overall quality of analysis

1

Identification of areas of policy dialog

Identification of innovative approach in project institutional setup

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Other

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

Networking with other partners (Donors, Civil Society Organizations, etc)

1

1

1

1

Linking with IFAD Programme Managers

1

1 1

The benefits to FO(s) have been in terms of

Gaining visibility with governmental authorities

Other

1

1 1

In your view, has the involvement of FO(s) resulted in benefit to the FO(s) themselves?

The main improvements deriving from FO(s) involvement have been in terms of

1

1

1

FO(s) involvement in specific projects

Have the Has any difficulty involvement and/or been encountered consultation of in agreeing on the FO(s) contributed to role of FO(s) in the significant implementation of improvements of the COSOP? the COSOP formulation?

1

1

1

Policy dialog with government

1

1

1

Please specify the types and modalities of FO(s) involvement in the implementation of this COSOP?

1

1

1 1

Does the COSOP foresee a role for FO(s) in the implementation?

1

1

1

1

1

Other (Increased awareness of opportunities of partnership with IFADfunded projects)

1

ANALISYS TABLES ABSOLUTE VALUES General information

FORMULATION Normal player

Costs

Involvement in implementation

Benefits to COSOP

Benefits to FO(s)

Difficulties

Special player

Region

Sample

FO(s) involved in cosop formulatin

Meeting with national preparation team

Participation in multistakeholder Consultations

Participation in the COSOP validation Workshop

Specific regional workshops with FO(s)

Membership in CPMT and/or PDTs

GLOBAL WCA ESA APR LAC NENA

14 7 2 3 1 1

10 7 2 3 1 1

10 7 2 3 1 1

11 4 2 3 1

6 6 2 2 1

7 4 1

0 6 1

Other

Normal player

Special player

0

5 1 1 3

9 6 1

1

1 1

FO(s) propossal reflecetd in the cosop 13 7 2 3 1

Additional costs

Estimated amount

3

USD 50,000

1 1 1

Specific strategic objective addressing FO(s) needs

Implementation role

11 7 1 2 1

12 7 1 3 1

Policy dialog with government 9 6 1 2

FO(s) involvement in specific projects 12 7 1 3 1

Membership in the CPMT or steering committee

Participation in monitoring or knowledge sharing exercises

8 6 1 1

8 5 1 2

Other

0

Significant improvement to the COSOP formulation

Understanding the poverty problematic

Identification of target groups

Overall quality of analysis

Identification of areas of policy dialog

Identification of innovative approach in project institutional setup

13 7 2 3 1

8 4 1 2 1

7 4 1 1 1

8 5 1 2

6 5

5 3

1

1 1

Other

3 2 1

Benefits to the FO(s) from involvement (overall) 12 7 1 3

Gaining visibility with governmental authorities

Linking with IFAD Programme Managers

Networking with other partners (Donors, Civil Society Organizations, etc)

9 6

11 7

8 5

3

3 1

2 1

1 1

Difficulties

4 1 1 2

ABSOLUTE VALUES General information

FORMULATION Normal player

Costs

Involvement in implementation

Benefits to COSOP

Benefits to FO(s)

Difficulties

Special player

Sample

Meeting with national preparation team

Participation in multistakeholder Consultations

Participation in the COSOP validation Workshop

Specific regional workshops with FO(s)

Membership in CPMT and/or PDTs

Other

Normal player

Special player

FO(s) propossal reflecetd in the cosop

Additional costs

Estimated amount

Identification of innovative approach in project institutional setup

Other

GLOBAL

1

71%

71%

79%

43%

50%

0%

0%

36%

64%

93%

21%

USD 50,000

79%

86%

64%

86%

57%

57%

0%

93%

57%

50%

57%

43%

36%

21%

86%

64%

79%

57%

7%

WCA

7

100%

100%

57%

86%

57%

86%

0%

14%

86%

100%

0%

100%

100%

86%

100%

86%

71%

0%

100%

57%

57%

71%

71%

43%

0%

100%

86%

100%

71%

0%

14%

Specific strategic objective addressing FO(s) needs

Implementation role

Policy dialog with government

FO(s) involvement in specific projects

Membership in the CPMT or steering committee

Other

Significant improvement to the COSOP formulation

Understanding the poverty problematic

Identification of target groups

Overall quality of analysis

Identification of areas of policy dialog

Gaining visibility with governmental authorities

Linking with IFAD Programme Managers

Networking with other partners (Donors, Civil Society Organizations, etc)

Other (Increased awareness of opportunities of partnership with IFADfunded projects)

Region

FO(s) involved in cosop formulatin

Participation in monitoring or knowledge sharing exercises

Benefits to the FO(s) from involvement (overall)

Difficulties

29%

ESA

2

100%

100%

100%

100%

50%

50%

0%

50%

50%

100%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

0%

100%

50%

50%

50%

0%

0%

100%

50%

0%

0%

0%

50%

50%

APR

3

100%

100%

100%

67%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

100%

33%

67%

100%

67%

100%

33%

67%

0%

100%

67%

33%

67%

33%

33%

33%

100%

100%

100%

67%

0%

67%

LAC

1

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0%

0%

0%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

100%

100%

100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

100%

100%

0%

0%

NENA

1

100%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

ANNEX 2 - LIST OF LOAN FINANCED PROJECTS APPROUVED IN 2010 AND 2011 AND SURVEY RESULTS

DATA BASE Have Farmers' or Rural Producers' Organizations (FO(s))ͥ been involved or consulted in the design of this project?

General information

IFAD's regional division

WCA

Country

Burundi

Simple bilateral meetings in the field or in the capital

Name of the project

Specific Participation of FO(s) in multiworkshops with stakeholder discussions FO(s)

1

1

1

WCA

Cameroon

Commodity Value Chain Development project (PADFA)

1

1

1

WCA

Central African Republic

Project for Reviving Food Crops and Small Livestock Production in the Savannah

1

1

1

WCA

Chad

Rural Development Support Programme in the Guera Region

1

1

WCA

Cote d'Ivoire

Support to Agricultural Development and Marketing Project (PROPACOM)

1

1

WCA

Ghana

Rural Enterprises Programme

1

WCA

Guinea

PNAAFA volet "Haute Guinée"

1

WCA

Liberia

STCRSP

1

WCA

Mali

PAPAM

1

WCA

Mauritania

PASK II

1

1

WCA

Niger

Project for the Promotion of Agricultural Value Chains, Local Innovations and Rural Markets in the Maradi Region (PASADEM)

1

1

WCA

Senegal

Support to Agricultural Development and Rural Entrepreneurship

1

WCA

Sierra Leone

WCA

Togo

ESA

Kenya

ESA

Lesotho

ESA

Madagascar

ESA

Madagascar

PRODEFI

Modalities of FO(s) involvement in the design process

SCP GAFSP

Projet d'appui au developpement agricole du Togo - PADAT

1

1

1

Normal player (Simple bilateral meetings in the field or in the capital AND/OR Participation of FO(s) in multistakeholder discussions)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Smallholder Agriculture Development Project

1

1

1

Vocational Training and Agricultural Productivity Improvement Programme

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Targeting

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Gender focus

Institutional setup for project implementation

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

MIVARF

1

1

1

Uganda

ATTAS

1

ESA

Uganda

Vegetable Oil Development Project 2

1

ESA

Zambia

Smallholder Productivity Promotion Programme

1

APR

Bhutan

MAGIP

0

APR

India

Integrated Livelihood Support Project

0

APR

Laos

Soum Son Seun Jai programme

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

APR

Mongolia

PMPMD

0

APR

Pakistan

GLLSP

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

SPPAP

1

1

1

1

1

1

LPDP

0

APR

APR

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

25000

400000

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

Tam Nong Support Project

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

Solomon Islands

Solomon Islands Rural Development Program

1

1

1

1

1

1

Indonesia

Smallholder Livelihood Development Project

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

Argentina

PRODERI

1

1

LAC

Bolivia

1

1

LAC

Brazil

Dom Tavora

1

1

1

LAC

Colombia

oportunidades rurales

1

1

1

Programa de Inclusión Familias y Comunidades Rurales en Territorio del Valle, Llano y Altiplano ACCESOS

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ecuador

Programa del Buen Vivir en Territorios Rurales

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

El Salvador

Rural Territorial Competitiveness Programme Amanecer Rural

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

Guatemala

Sustainable Rural Development Programme in El Quiché in Guatemala

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

Haiti

PAIP: Productives Initiatives Support Program in rural areas

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

Honduras

Sustainable Rural Development Programme for the Southern Region (Emprende Sur)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

Honduras

Northern Horizons - Competitiveness and Sustainable Rural Development Project in the Northern Zone (Honduras)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

LAC

1

1

Nicaragua

Value Chain and market Access Project for Smallscale Producers – PROCAVAL. Top-up financing

1

NENA

Albania

Mountain Business Competitiveness Programme

1

1

NENA

Armenia

racp

1

1

NENA

Bosnia and Herzegovina

RBDP

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Egypt

PRIME

1

1

1

NENA

Republic of Moldova

RFSADP

1

1

1

NENA

Sudan

Seed Development Project

1

1

NENA

Sudan

1

1

1

NENA

Syria

Integrated Livestock Dev Project

1

1

1

NENA

Yemen

Fisheries Investment Project

1

1

1

NENA

Yemen

YemenInvest - Rural Employment Programme

1

1

NENA

Yemen

Economic Opportunities Programme

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1500

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

NENA

Support to small-scale traditional rainfed producers in Sinnar

1

1

1

1

0

1

LAC

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

Sustainable Empowerment of Ethnic Minorities in Dak Nong province

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

Tanzania, United Republic of

Viet Nam

1

1

1

ESA

1

1

1

1

1

ESA

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

APR

1

1

0

1

1

Viet Nam

1

1

1

Other

0

0

1

Pakistan

1

1

1

1

1

1

Tajikistan

1

1

1

0

1

1

APR

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

PRICE

APR

1

1

1

1

Malawi

APR

1

1

1

Rwanda

1

1

1

1

1

Mozambique

Membership in steering committees/CPMTs

0

1

1

Formal membership in the CPMT

0

1

ESA

1

1

Formal membership in the steering committee

1

ESA

1

Implementers or service providers

1

1

1

Assignment of full responsibility for the management of one or more component (implies conveyance or retrocession of funds to the FO(s)

1

ESA

Artisanal Fisheries Promotion Project (ProPESCA)

Involvement of FO(s) in component(s) as service Providers (implies formal agreement or contract between PMU and FO(s)

1

1

1

Involvement of FO(s) in component(s) as implementation partners with specific responsibility

0

1

1

Inclusion of FO(s) in component(s) as direct beneficiaries of capacity building/institutional development activities (outcomes are relevant either to the organization or to individual members)

0

1

Has any difficulty been encountered or foreseen in involving FO(s) in the implementation of this project?

Please specify the types or modalities of FO(s) (foreseen) involvement in the implementation of this project

1

1

1

Are FO(s) involved (or planned to be involved) in the implementation of this project?

If yes, please estimate the amount USD

Other

1

1

1

1

Definition of project objectives

1

1

1

1

Special player (Specific workshops with FO(s) AND/OR Negotiations between FO(s) and government or other development actors AND/OR FO(s)' representative(s) being member of design team, PDT, CPMT or QE panel AND/OR FO(s)' representative participation in the loan negotiations AND/OR FO(s)' representative participation in the loan negotiations)

1

1

1

1

Other

1

1

1

SAPP

FO(s)' representative participation in the loan negotiations

1

1

1

FO(s)' representative(s) being member of design team, PDT, CPMT or QE panel

1

1

PROFIT

Project to Support Development in the Menabe and Melaky Regions

Negotiations between FO(s) and government or other development actors

Have there been additional costs for IFAD incurred from the involvement of FO(s) in the design of this project?

Has the consultation or involvement of FO(s) significantly influenced the design of the project?

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

ANNEX 2 - LIST OF LOAN FINANCED PROJECTS APPROUVED IN 2010 AND 2011 AND SURVEY RESULTS

ANALISYS TABLES Absolute values General information

Nb of projects reporting additional cost

DESIGN

Normal player

Special player

Participation of FO(s) in multistakeholder discussions

Has the consultation or involvement of FO(s) significantly influenced the design of the project?

FO(s)' Negotiations FO(s)' representative(s) between FO(s) and Specific workshops representative being member of government or with FO(s) participation in the design team, PDT, other development loan negotiations CPMT or QE panel actors

Region

Sample

FO(s) consulted

Simple bilateral meetings in the field or in the capital

GLOBAL

58

54

43

41

6

1

WCA

14

14

9

12

7

6

2

1

ESA

11

11

9

9

4

4

1

23

12

APR

11

7

5

7

LAC

11

11

9

7

8

1

NENA

11

11

11

6

4

1

IMPLEMENTATION

Other

Normal player

6

Special player

Targeting

Gender focus

30

32

Institutional setup for project implementation

Other

Nb of projects reporting additional cost

17

11

USD 426.500

Involvement of FO(s) in component(s) as implementation partners with specific responsibility

Involvement of FO(s) in component(s) as service Providers (implies formal agreement or contract between PMU and FO(s)

Formal Formal membership in the membership in the steering committee CPMT

28

Other

Assignment of full responsibility for the management of one or more component (implies conveyance or retrocession of funds to the FO(s)

21

33

20

30

56

55

49

38

29

10

7

5

1

13

13

8

8

4

10

4

4

14

13

11

8

11

6

1

3

1

4

7

11

5

6

1

4

2

2

11

9

7

6

5

4

3

7

3

47

Definition of project objectives

Inclusion of FO(s) in component(s) as direct beneficiaries of capacity building/institution FO(s) involveement al development estimated amount in implem activities (outcomes are relevant either to the organization or to individual members)

11

4

4

3

5

3

8

7

6

5

1

1

2

9

11

8

7

7

4

4

2

11

11

8

6

6

1

2

7

4

11

6

7

4

6

4

3

11

9

6

4

5

2

Difficulties

5 8 2 4

2

1 3

Relative values General information Normal player

Special player

Has the consultation or involvement of FO(s) significantly influenced the design of the project?

FO(s)' Negotiations FO(s)' representative(s) between FO(s) and representative being member of government or participation in the design team, PDT, other development loan negotiations CPMT or QE panel actors

FO(s) consulted

Simple bilateral meetings in the field or in the capital

Participation of FO(s) in multistakeholder discussions

Specific workshops with FO(s)

58

96%

77%

73%

33%

17%

9%

14

100%

64%

86%

50%

43%

14%

11

100%

82%

82%

36%

36%

9%

APR

11

64%

45%

64%

0%

0%

0%

0%

LAC

11

100%

82%

64%

73%

9%

0%

NENA

11

100%

100%

55%

36%

9%

27%

Region

Sample

GLOBAL WCA ESA

Nb of projects reporting additional cost

DESIGN

Inclusion of FO(s) in component(s) as direct beneficiaries of capacity building/institution al development activities (outcomes are relevant either to the organization or to individual members)

Involvement of FO(s) in component(s) as implementation partners with specific responsibility

Involvement of Assignment of full FO(s) in responsibility for component(s) as the management of Formal Formal service Providers one or more membership in the membership in the (implies formal component (implies steering committee CPMT agreement or conveyance or contract between retrocession of PMU and FO(s) funds to the FO(s)

Definition of project objectives

Targeting

Gender focus

Institutional setup for project implementation

Other

56%

59%

37%

56%

31%

17%

12%

57%

29%

71%

29%

29%

100%

93%

79%

57%

79%

43%

7%

21%

57%

55%

9%

36%

18%

18%

100%

82%

64%

55%

45%

36%

27%

0%

18%

57%

43%

71%

43%

0%

73%

88%

75%

63%

13%

0%

0%

0%

50%

73%

64%

64%

36%

36%

18%

100%

100%

73%

55%

55%

0%

9%

18%

9%

55%

64%

36%

55%

36%

27%

100%

82%

55%

36%

45%

0%

18%

0%

27%

Other

Normal player

Special player

1%

9%

36%

57%

7%

36%

7%

93%

93%

57%

0%

9%

36%

64%

100%

45%

0%

64%

0%

157%

57%

0%

9%

18%

82%

100%

0%

18%

64%

36%

100%

87%

IMPLEMENTATION Are FO(s) involved (or planned to be involved) in the implementation of this project?

Estimated amount

20%

USD 426.500

95%

84%

66%

50%

9%

48%

Other

Difficulties

31%

ANNEX 3 - LIST OF LOAN FINANCED PROJECTS APPROUVED FROM 2006 TO 2009 AND SURVEY RESULTS

DATA BASE Have the activities involving Have the expected results of the Has any difficulty been encountered in Farmers' Organizations (FO(s))ͥ activities involving FO(s) been achieved achieving the expected results of activities described in the project design or are on track to be achieved? involving FO(s)? document- been implemented?

General information

Targeting

Poverty focus

Gender focus

Empowerment

Institution building

Relevance if activities proposed

Effectiveness of implementation

Contribution to monitoring and identification of problems

Potential for scaling up

Institutional development

Capacity building

Provision of economic services to the FO(s)' members

Increased outreach

Better representation in policy dialog processes

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

No

No

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Fully)

No

No

No

1

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

IFAD's regional division

Country

Name of the project

WCA

Burkina Faso

Projet d'Irrigation et de Gestion de l'Eau à Petite Echelle (PIGEPE)

1

WCA

Burkina Faso

PDRD Programme de Développement Rural Durable

Cameroon

Rural Microfinance Development Support Project (PADMIR)

PRODER 2

WCA

WCA

Congo

WCA

Cote d'Ivoire

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Poverty Reduction Project

D.R. Congo

Integrated Agricultural Rehabilitation Programme In the Maniema Province

Guinea

Village Communities Support Project Phase II

WCA

WCA

WCA

Mali

In your view, what have been the most important benefits the FO(s) are drawing from their involvement in this project?

Has the FO(s)' involvement brought any positive influence on one or more of the following performance criteria for this project?

pidrk

WCA

Mali

PMR

WCA

Mauritania

ProLPRAF

1

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

WCA

Senegal

Support to Agricultural Value Chains Project

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

WCA

Senegal

Agricultural Services and Farmers Organisations Project

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

WCA

Sierra Leone

No

ESA

Angola

ESA

Burundi

RFCIP

Market oriented smallholder agriculture project

PAIVA - B

1

Yes (Fully)

1

No

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

No

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

ESA

Comoros

National programme for sustainable humand development - PNDHD

ESA

Kenya

SHOMAP

1

Yes (Slightly)

ESA

Madagascar

Ad2M

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

ESA

Madagascar

Support to Farmers’ Professional Organizations and Agricultural Services Project

1

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

ESA

Madagascar

Support Programme for Rural Microenterprise Poles and Regional Economies

ESA

Malawi

ESA

Mozambique

RLEEP

1

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

1

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Rural Markets Promotion Programme (PROMER)

ESA

Rwanda

KWAMP

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

ESA

Tanzania, United Republic of

Agricultural Sector Development Programme(Busket fund),

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

No

ESA

Uganda

Community Agricultural Infrastructure Improvement Programme

1

Yes (Fully)

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

No

No

ESA

Uganda

District Livelihoods Support Programme (DLSP)

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

No

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

No

ESA

Zambia

APR

China

APR

Laos

SAPP

Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Program

NRSLLDP

APR

Maldives

FADiP

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

APR

Philippines

RaFPEP

1

Yes (Fully)

1

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

APR

Philippines

Second CHARM Project

1

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

APR

Sri Lanka

National Agribusiness Development

1

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

APR

Sri Lanka

Smallholder Plantations Entrepreneurship Development

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Don't know

APR

Viet Nam

Pro-poor Partnerships for Agroforestry Development

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

No

APR

Viet Nam

Developing Business with the Rural Poor

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

No

No

APR

Viet Nam

Improving Market Participation of the Poor

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

No

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

LAC

Argentina

Programa de Desarrollo de las Areas Rurales

1

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

LAC

Ecuador

Proyecto para el desarrollo Territoriaal Ibarra Sanlorenzo

1

No

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Guatemala

Sustainable Rural Development Programme for the Northern Region

LAC

Haiti

Small-scale Irrigation Development Project (PPI-2)

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

LAC

Honduras

Project for Enhancing the Rural Economic Competitiveness of Yoro

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

LAC

Mexico

Community-based Forestry Development Project for Southern States in Mexico

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

LAC

Nicaragua

PROCAVAL

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

LAC

1

LAC

Paraguay

Project Paraguay Rural

LAC

Venezuela

Proyecto de Apoyo a las Poblaciones Warao del Delta del Orinoco

NENA

Albania

Mountain to Markets Programme

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

NENA

Armenia

FMAP

1

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

Don't know

NENA

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Rural Entreprise Enhancement Project REEP

1

Yes (Fully)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

NENA

Georgia

Agricultural Support Project

NENA

Republic of Moldova

RURAL FINANCE SERVICE AND MARKETING PROGRAMME

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

No

No

No

No

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Don't know

NENA

South Sudan

South Sudan Livelihoods Development Project

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

No

Yes (Slightly)

No

No

NENA

Sudan

Revitalizing the Sudan Gum Arabic and Production

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

NENA

Sudan

Butana Integrated Rural Development Project

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

No

NENA

Syria

North Eastern region Rural Development Project

1

Yes (Slightly)

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Don't know

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

NENA

Turkey

NENA

Turkey

DBSDP

1

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

Yemen

Rainfed Agriculture and Livestock Project

1

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Slightly)

Yes (Fully)

No

Yes (Slightly)

NENA

AKADP

1

ANNEX 3 - LIST OF LOAN FINANCED PROJECTS APPROUVED FROM 2006 TO 2009 AND SURVEY RESULTS

ANALISYS TABLES ABSOLUTE VALUES General information

Have the activities involving Farmers' Organizations (FO(s)) described in the project design document- been implemented?

Have the expected results of the activities involving FO(s) been achieved or are on track to be achieved?

Don't know

No

46

2

4

20

20

1

1

5

2

5

Region

Sample

GLOBAL

58

WCA

13

8

ESA

14

12

APR

10

10

LAC

9

6

NENA

12

10

Has the FO(s)' involvement brought any positive influence on one or more of the following performance criteria for this project?

Targeting

1 1

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

Difficulties in achieving results

Don't know

No

20

5

8

1

2

1

5

4

4

5

7

1

1

4

1

2

5

5

6

1

Poverty focus

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

24

9

2

5

2

6

4

3

2

4

7

No

5

8

1

4 1

Don't know

1

1

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

23

10

2

5

2

5

5

3

3

3

2 1

Gender focus

6

No

5

9

1

4 1

Don't know

2

Empowerment

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

19

Don't know

No

13

5

6

1

2

3

2

4

3

6

1

4

1

2

4

1

5

1

1

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

20

Don't know

No

15

5

7

1

2

4

1

2

3

7

1

3

5

2 4

Institution building

4 1

6

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

15

19

Don't know

No

7

6

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

20

13

What have been the most important benefits the FO(s) are drawing from their involvement in this project?

Effectiveness of implementation

Don't know

No

6

6

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

19

15

Contribution to monitoring and identification of problems Don't know

No

7

7

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

15

17

Potential for scaling-up

Don't know

No

12

4

Institution development

Yes Yes (fully) (Slightly)

21

9

Don't know

5

5

17

Provision of economic services to the FO(s) members

Capacity building

Yes No Yes (fully) (Slightly)

19

Don't know

5

Yes No Yes (fully) (Slightly)

4

25

Don't know

12

6

Yes No Yes (fully) (Slightly)

6

Better representation in policy dialog processes

Increased outreah

Don't know

Yes No Yes (fully) (Slightly)

20

14

10

9

11

16

Don't know

9

No Yes (fully)

14

9

2

4

1

1

1

4

2

1

2

4

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

5

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

6

1

2

1

4

3

2

3

2

3

2

7

1

3

3

5

1

2

4

5

2

3

4

3

2

3

4

3

1

1

3

7

1

1

4

6

1

3

4

4

1

4

4

3

1

4

5

2

1

4

3

1

5

4

1

2

4

3

4

3

3

1

5

4

1

1

7

1

1

6

3

3

1

2

4

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

2

3

1

4

1

1

3

2

1

2

3

1

4

3

1

4

3

1

3

5

2

6

4

3

1

4

4

2

6

1

2

2

3

3

1

1 2

2

Relevance of activities proposed

2

1

4 1

5

2 3

1

2

1

1 2

1

2

1

1

Yes (Slightly)

14 3 4

3

2

2

1

4

RELATIVE VALUES General information

Have the activities involving Farmers' Organizations (FO(s)) described in the project design document- been implemented?

Have the expected results of the activities involving FO(s) been achieved or are on track to be achieved? Targeting Difficulties Yes in achieving Yes (fully) results (Slightly)

Don't know

No

79%

4%

9%

13

62%

13%

13%

63%

14

86%

0%

17%

42%

Region

Sample

GLOBAL

58

WCA ESA APR

Has the FO(s)' involvement brought any positive influence on one or more of the following performance criteria for this project?

43%

Poverty focus

Gender focus

Empowerment

Institution building

Relevance of activities proposed

What have been the most important benefits the FO(s) are drawing from their involvement in this project?

Effectiveness of implementation

Contribution to monitoring and

Potential for scaling-up

Institution development

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No

Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

43%

11%

17%

52%

20%

11%

17%

50%

22%

11%

20%

41%

28%

11%

13%

43%

33%

11%

15%

33%

41%

15%

13%

43%

28%

13%

13%

41%

33%

15%

15%

33%

37%

26%

9%

46%

20%

11%

11%

13%

15%

13%

25%

63%

0%

13%

25%

63%

0%

13%

25%

38%

25%

13%

25%

50%

13%

13%

25%

50%

13%

13%

13%

50%

25%

13%

25%

50%

13%

13%

13%

38%

38%

13%

13%

63%

13%

13%

25%

42%

29%

0%

17%

50%

33%

0%

17%

42%

42%

0%

33%

25%

50%

0%

17%

25%

58%

0%

25%

17%

58%

8%

25%

25%

42%

8%

17%

33%

42%

17%

25%

33%

25%

17%

25%

33%

25%

8%

8%

43%

Capacity building

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

No Yes (fully)

41%

11%

9%

38%

25%

13%

13%

25%

58%

8%

8%

No Yes (fully)

37%

Provision of economic services to the Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

26%

13%

75%

0%

13%

25%

33%

50%

8%

25%

54%

13%

Increased outreah

Better representation in policy dialog

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

30%

22%

13%

50%

38%

25%

0%

38%

33%

33%

8%

33%

33%

25%

No Yes (fully)

43%

No Yes (fully)

20%

24%

Yes (Slightly)

Don't know

35%

20%

No Yes (fully)

Yes (Slightly)

30%

20%

0%

0%

25%

38%

0%

0%

8%

33%

30%

10

100%

10%

0%

40%

50%

70%

10%

30%

20%

40%

10%

30%

30%

30%

10%

0%

40%

10%

10%

10%

30%

50%

10%

0%

40%

50%

20%

10%

40%

30%

10%

0%

50%

40%

10%

20%

40%

30%

40%

0%

30%

30%

10%

0%

50%

40%

10%

10%

70%

10%

10%

0%

60%

30%

30%

10%

20%

40%

0%

30%

0%

20%

LAC

9

67%

0%

17%

17%

67%

11%

33%

0%

67%

0%

33%

0%

67%

0%

33%

0%

67%

0%

33%

0%

67%

0%

33%

33%

17%

50%

33%

0%

67%

0%

33%

0%

33%

33%

33%

0%

17%

50%

50%

0%

50%

0%

17%

0%

33%

50%

17%

0%

67%

17%

17%

0%

50%

33%

17%

0%

33%

50%

17%

0%

0%

67%

NENA

12

83%

0%

0%

50%

50%

50%

10%

10%

70%

10%

10%

10%

60%

20%

10%

0%

50%

40%

10%

10%

60%

20%

10%

0%

40%

30%

10%

10%

50%

30%

10%

20%

40%

30%

10%

10%

30%

50%

20%

0%

60%

20%

10%

20%

40%

30%

10%

10%

40%

40%

20%

10%

60%

10%

20%

20%

30%

30%

10%

20%

0%

10%

ANNEX 4 - LIST OF GRANTS APPROVED IN 2010 AND 2011 Approval

Grant no

IFAD Division

Geographic coverage

Benefiting institution

Recipient

Object

Support type

2010

1234

PTA

G

CSO

MIJARC

Facilitating the access of rural youth to farming activites

Not direct

USD

400.000

AgriCord

Capacity-building for Farmers' Organizations involved in IFAD Country Programmes

Direct

USD

1.550.000

Direct

USD

350.000

2010

G-I-R-1243-AgriCord

NENA

G

CSO

Amount USD

2010

1672— AGRICORD VZW

SKM

G

CSO

AgriCord

Supporting inclusive planning of country projects financed by the Global Agriculture and Food Security programme

2010

1263-FLANZ

APR

R

FO

Fairtrade Labelling of Australia and New Zealand (FLANZ)

Fair-trade Promotion Project in PNG

Not direct

USD

500.000

Direct

USD

3.600.000

2010

COFIN-EC-19-SN

WCA

N

FO

ASPRODEB

Programme de facilité alimentaire au Sénegal/Project de production de semences certifiées d’arachide e de riz

2010

COFIN NO 7

PTA

N

CSO

Conseil national de concertacion et cooperation de ruraux

Rural women leadrship programme

Direct

USD

150.000

2010

COFIN NO 6

PTA

N

GOV

Agricultural ministry

Rural women leadrship programme

Not direct

USD

150.000

CSO

League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development (LPP)

Inter-regional Learning on Animal Fine Fibre Processing and Niche Markets

Direct

USD

200.000

EAFF

Strengthen capacity of Eastern African farmers’ organizations through knowledge management and institutional development

Direct

USD

150.000

EAFF

Strengthening knowledge management and institutional development in East Africa Farmers' Federation

Direct

USD

1.500.000

2011

2011

2011

1287- LPP

1298

PTA

ESA

ESA

G

R

R

FO

FO