Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Président de l'alliance du Bénin

Dear all,

In simple words innovation is making “today” better than “yesterday”.

What projects do is to put in a new packaging old “recipes/formulas” which were successful in the past. That’s why there is still a need for something new and different in the field of agriculture, food security and nutrition.

All this effort could be linked with: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility, (b) research projects having to do with conservation of plant biodiversity through new innovative crops utilizing native plant species or/and establishment of small botanical gardens which could lead to innovative products in many areas such as food production, secondary innovative products, agro-touristic “hot-spots”, (c) education/training in many fields such as applied project management, a discipline of much importance in everyday life. This could provoke Institutes such as Project Management Institute-USA to invest.

Return on investment is the “key-answer”!

Regards,

Dimitra Zervaki, MBA, PMP

Project Manager, Consultant, Agronomist

Dear All,

I have attached a one-pager that captures my thoughts on the need for developing a model or framework for recognising the effect of psychological and sociological factors in smallholder agriculture financing.

I think this is going to be a new frontier for the 21st Century.

Addressing issues at the levels of technology, literacy, awareness and enabling environment do not necessarily address issues of mind-set, paradigm, culture, etc which eventually remain and haunt many well-designed interventions.

Yet, some of the biggest obstacles to financial inclusion in the (especially rural) agriculture sector lie at this level and affects areas such as:

1) Conceptualisation, establishment and growth of a small-scale farm enterprise

2) Ability to clearly identify what the financing needs are

3) Loan repayment

Regards

Christian

Corporate and private funding to sponsor the purchase large tracts specifically for agricultural development can be beneficial for everyone.

The benefactors receive publicity and tax breaks, while community agriculture increases food security. Corporations are always seeking opportunities to promote a positive image to their customers.

Solicitation of corporate funding through pledges can help to ensure well-financed agricultural production zones in developing nations.

In this system, the benefactors only contribute funds on an on-going basis to support the purchase of seeds and supplies. The communities have complete control over managing the farms.

Eventually, as production increases, the excess can be used for sale or trade with other local communities.

This ancient trade system will benefit from on-going modern world funding from organizations and citizens in developed nations.

Some of the new projects we are currently launching in Africa and India (postharvest training ands services centers) include a postharvest shop and offer tools, supplies, packaging materials and various types of simple, low cost equipment that farmers and traders can use to reduce food losses between harvest and the consumer.  Some of the more expensive technologies and tools such as a refractometer (used to measure sugar content to determine ripeness and the best time to harvest certain fruits) can be leased for a day or a week.  Higher priced equipment such as walk-in cool rooms for temporary food storage or machines for various types of food processing can be paid for over time on a rent-to-own basis.   This allows individuals or groups of users to use the technologies on a trial basis, gain the benefits of reduced losses and improved quality, while spreading out the payments over a season or even over a year. 

Dr. Lisa Kitinoja

The Postharvest Education Foundation

USA

FSN Friends --

We are asked to suggest innovative financing mechanisms (IFMs) “as a means to complement the lack of investment in agriculture and decreasing ODA [Official Development Assistance], with the aim to provide reliable and predictable financing for development in the area of agriculture, food security and nutrition.”

 

Before pushing ahead to answers, perhaps we should pause to parse the question. The core concern here seems to be some sort of deficit. What is the main motivator here? Is it the problem of hunger in the world today? Is it concern about overall food supplies at some time in the future? Is it lagging profitability in particular industries?

 

What type of IFMs are we talking about? Large-scale? Small-scale? In low-income countries, high-income countries, or everywhere? Maybe the concern is that certain groups have less access to credit than others?

 

There are big differences between investments for agriculture and for basic nutrition. Much of agriculture is not for food, and much of the food production is for luxury foods such as coffee and chocolate. Much of the food that is produced goes to people who are not particularly needy.

 

What evidence do we have that there is a lack of investment in agriculture? What are the key indicators? Some might argue that agriculture, viewed as a business, generally does get the amount of investment it should be getting. That is, maybe agriculture is already getting the investments that would be expected given the prevailing risks and rates of return.

 

So what exactly is the problem to be addressed here?

 

Once we have decided what is the main problem we want to look at, we should spend some time explaining it. Why is there not enough investment in agriculture, or the particular type of agriculture that interests us?

 

We should think about whether finding IFMs is likely to be a good way to address the problem that interests us. Maybe there are other good approaches. Maybe the focus on IFMs is too locked in to the conventional market perspective, and thus too narrow in its vision.

 

Suppose we agree that the main problem we want to focus on is the widespread hunger in the world. This is not due to an overall global food shortage. It is due primarily to the fact that many poor people do not have enough money to access the food supply that is out there, and they do not have adequate resources to produce their own food. New investments in conventional agriculture are not likely to help them very much. However, well-designed investments in the poor could be very helpful.

 

Maybe thinking of hunger as a global economic problem takes us down the wrong track. Suppose we look at the hunger issue at the level of families and small communities. With decent opportunities, and freed of exploitation by others, every family and every community would find ways to provide for itself. With decent opportunities, they would produce their own food, or they would earn enough money to purchase their food. If that is so, then the investment that is needed would be to ensure that every family had those opportunities.

 

Do the powerful people of the world care enough about poor people’s well-being to ensure that they have those opportunities? Or are they indifferent? Or maybe those who are better off are actively opposed to improving the lot of the poor because they value the cheap labor and cheap goods that the poor provide?

 

There are abundant resources in the world that could be directed to ensuring decent opportunities for the poor, but those who control those resources obviously have other priorities. New sources of funding could be proposed, but is there any reason to expect that those who control those funds would prioritize the poor? Yes, one could imagine innovations such as a small tax on currency transactions, but how would those revenues be managed? Would the powerful accept such a tax if the revenues were used primarily for the benefit of the poor?

 

“Investing” in the poor is not going to provide secure economic returns on investments comparable with other more conventional investment opportunities. Whether they use old or new sources of funds, we would have to find investors who would view the relief of human misery as a good return on their efforts.

 

Aloha, George

--

Professor George Kent (Emeritus)

Department of Political Science

University of Hawai'i

Honolulu, Hawai'i 96822

USA

Posted on behalf of Peter Filius, Germany

Hi, there;

In terms of innovative funding sources I'd like to suggest a kind of "foster system", which means that european or OECD country inhabitants would foster a family of small scales farmers in a developing country. Similar to a "orphan's adoption system" they would exchange letters and experiences, photographs and emails, so share their daily lives. I am sure that the communication facitlities nowadays should offer many options for the partners. The partners will be able to invest into climate and food security programmes at a very low but efficient level on the farms, such as planting trees, water and sanitation projects (filters) and so on. Sponsors could benefit by sharing directly the positive impacts of the activities, planned together with their partners. Small scale individual credit schemes could be another option. Key players in the system to build up the framework will be rural banks and micro-credit schemes (transfer costs of money, accounts) and maybe churches and religious bodies as reliable and wide-spread organizations to facilitate serious partner contacts.

Pls discuss my proposal with your team and think it over - yours P.