全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Effective approaches to channeling x into sustainable investment in agribusiness: The importance of "Nutritional Diversity." part 1 

A fatal error exists in modern culture - likely many do. For many minds today exists a total disregard for nature, natural knowledge, and understanding of nature, even simple things like planting a plant, and understanding time in nature; should be two basic first learned and regularly routine fixtures of a strong, healthy human culture. Furthermore, the depth of this nature connection is essential to everything we know, how could we possibly think that it is not?

From the start to the finish, nature shows us a dynamic diversity that works together. We go with a now chemically dependent singular culture model for our later consumption that kills thousands of species a day per square foot. It affects negatively the entire ecosystem on the planet. We struggle with the immune system or lack of that, and health crisis in 50 plus forms at this time. We have built islands of trash and killed a huge percentage of the life on this planet in the name of various industries; one of the largest being the agriculture industry. The whole world is guilty.

The current migrant situation today and the large prison population today and the military population today {x} are all great opportunities to quickly make up for a lost time here, restore ecology, and innovate for natural restorations and health potentials [a].

Governments (1) should most certainly incentive green conversions, green roofs, and new green installments, operations, and activities in an all-natural method, maybe even with all-natural permaculture (Mullison.B) method education (example) [b] since that is not what we have available today. All of these and more surely clear no-brainer investments compared to many ongoing biological investments now. It doesn't stop at subsidies and incentives; job creation for land enhancement, land enhancement research - specifically biodynamic (Steiner, R.) applications and evolutions could drastically improve our quality of life, health both personally and ecologically, and in long-term sustainability.

Diverse natural diets [c] 1 reduce the nation's health costs, 2 reduce toxic mission from agriculture, 3. reduce soil decay, and 4 promote ecological vitality - arguably the most important feature of the land.

Air and water, "green equity" - the most valuable equity (air, breath) no one considers, and water health is improved by conscious direction and through biodynamic land enhancements [d].

The natural teacher (nature) can resolve many of today's conceptual difficulties and return solid grounding to cultures that have floated away in their own creative fantasy - that turns out harmful to our world. So many lessons in the natural exchange missing from today will restore; what is missing from today.

Provides incomes, health, and freedom to migrants and underfunded families.

With or without government participation, this "diverse all-natural" agenda can and should go on, and can be a very profitable self-start business the poor can come up with quickly and in several ways at once. If I had a diverse all-natural ingredient smoothie or salad bar, dinner or even snack stand in my area I would be there ten times a week. I travel regularly great distances to rare places that do have, and more and more athletes in my gym and from my small cooperative of farms come with me each time.

There are several avenues to take, for example;

Independent small "garden to table businesses" that educate their communities about 1 the toxins in modern agriculture, 2 about the benefits of more natural consumption, and 3 provide the nutritional diversity diet variety minimums to deliver a solid effect and culturing that will make for a substantial permanent upgrade and understanding of how important it is to hit the high mark - and remove the low marks from our biological practices. This right now has been more important to athletes and they are perfect to take the concept forward because they work hard! Food buying groups, compost operation operators, biodynamic preparations specialists, all-natural fertilizer makers, micro-greens growers, gardeners, animal farmers, chocolate and cheesemakers will be able to fill specialty fields.

Invest in the talented, bio-artists, innovators, and engineers who are and have been growing stuff in this field now!  Those of us who have remained steady and consistent in our efforts, education, and advancement can make good leaders, and set the right trends and examples to move us along the God-given path past ultimate health and onto superior mental and athletic ability through the nuclear potentials in biological activity right in front of us. This is the innovation of the most basic importance that we have skipped over in search of new mechanical and computation technologies. To make a nice-looking veer off onto this road with a good chunk of the human potential into the very potent leg of "natural enhancement [b]" would be pretty smart of us about 10-100 years ago. "Permacultures" are near match producing modern agriculture today on many sites, a very published science with 60 years in practice.

Land appropriations and new land purchases for all-natural no-chemical use farming and conscious, educated, respectful, and careful enhancements to normal ecologists. How no government grants to this currently is beyond me and I am thankful for the forest protection that does go on. Fire lands, lands robbed for cattle raising are excellent first candidates for this very necessary practice.

We have an experiment (and there are others like ours) with new blockchain technology, offering a valuable* non-fungible token of limited production in exchange for land and tree care via GPS (Global Position System) oriented grow log participation. Ideas are happening about an eco-based action economy where appreciation of these ecologically supportive activities has the opportunity to become a new base rate for humans who choose to support such attention. We have even gone to the extent of developing a video game that targets-26 years old's and plans to offer a "metaverse" position for ecologically and personal health-supportive trends. These are great networking potentials for new people to this passion [e].

There are ten roads to the other side no doubt, and I would suggest investment into crossing each on getting to this particular destination.

Discussion:

In Panama now ten years our small group has done a lot with a little and we can tell you alternative agriculture investment interest is still a very difficult pursuit. We are familiar with the red tape of the North, the lack of education in the South, and the stranglehold of modern agriculture on it all. It is very much up to an alternative culture completely to step up to doing better for themselves, their children, and their communities and make these changes, go into this business, add this natural and diverse future.

After a month of research and networking a person or family could be off to the races in a new nitch field where the possibilities are endless and the discoveries miraculous. It is a solid business concept it appeases multiple existing markets and an even more solid pursuit for mankind in general. Facilitation of new channels of investment will be important moving forward that provide liquidity options and formal securities to investors.

Information exchange and merit-building conversations for this field have continuously returned my team thinktanks to the metaverse inevitability as a robust place to moderate operational structures within communities  (time regulated for less personal mental health risk of course). There is great benefit in natural arts, sciences, and business communities.

Separation is the thought-enemy in this science. We need a science of combinations of strategically selected diverse elements at just the right times to conjure up the higher forces of nature. We will do all this for the smallest improvements, but over time it will amount to a mountain of health, intelligence, performance, prosperity, and wellbeing. Science in the direction of dissection,  separation, and isolation has yielded the most error-ridden and overcomplicated system of total imbalance.

I hope we do find a functional implementation for both the migrant populous and the ecology.

Thanks,

Brandon, Nutritional Diversity

Conclusions:

We concluded, long ago that the more diverse the diets and more diverse species in nature able to work together are the best performing biologies.

The opportunity for health and performance gains in diverse biological studies is seemingly limitless and should be a priority.

Reference,

a. "Bio-Tribe" Xprize, Cabron Removal Team, Panama - Natural Soil Enhancement, Diversified Diet and Agricultural modeling.

b. "Nutritional Diversity" Education Channel example

c. Nutritional Diversity Concept diets

d. Integrative "Eco-Food" Concept Pioneering

e. ND Non-Fungible Token concept

(Mullison B., Steiner R.)

Q1. In my view, effort by government is welcome but not necessary to for matching grant programmes. Matching grant projects/programmes should be based on sustainability and possibility of increasing the income generating opportunity of first-degree relatives of the migrant to GDP per capita level of the country to which a person migrated or native country of the migrant.   

The government may have other priorities. The income generating path for first-degree relatives of the migrant in agriculture/ animal husbandry/ dairy farming/ fisheries/ forestry may not be in the government’s priorities list.

Like minded volunteers (NGOs, academia) promote first-degree relatives of the migrant partnering with local (honest) youth working on rural transformation with access to finance, skill and experience sharing/knowledge transfer.

Q2. Matching grant programmes are suitable for first-degree relatives of the migrant with well settled migrants having reasonable income.  Refugees, migrants returning under unusual conditions may not be having cash at hand to match grant.  Usually, first-degree relatives of the migrant labourers invest the remittances in house, agricultural land or gold for security reasons. They will be at mercy of local money lenders for cash.

Matching grant programmes are best suited for scaling the existing agricultural activity/ business of first-degree relatives of the migrant to meet the demand of preferred agricultural products in the country where the migrant is working. Migrant, donor, first-degree relatives of the migrant and local youth can form a team to achieve required quality standards of preferred agricultural products.

Partnering with local youth to meet the domestic market is better than matching grant. Partnering with local youth will be less risky and more adoptable to local cultural and traditional practices.

Q3.  investment in Information Practice (IP) is a preferable alternative. Convincing the farmers of best practices elsewhere in the world yielding high valued agricultural products or value addition to agribusiness is necessary. Increasing the first-degree relatives of the migrant’s income to GDP level is a reasonable target. Adopting efficient agricultural practices needs support from local ‘Village Livelihood Information Consultant’.

See the attached note on ‘Information Practice in matching grant programmes’

Q4. We do not work directly in matching grant programmes. Our charitable activity is focussed on PWDs (persons with disabilities). Our area of operation is more than 30 adjacent villages with about 50,000 population and more than 10,000 households in East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh, India. We, limit scope of our activities to proof-of-concept (POC) leaving the scaling and impact part to the successful beneficiaries. Sustainability of the idea is verified before initiating the POC.  

Inclusion criteria for programmes

Contribution in cash from beneficiary may become a barrier for some first-degree relatives of the migrant. They may end up in borrowing cash from local money lender pledging gold or agricultural land. Some may not be interested in venturing matching grant programmes with borrowed money.

On An Effective Way of Channelling Remittances from Migrant Workers into Gainful Food Production and Sale in their Home Countries

In order to enhance its clarity, we have paraphrased the topic of this discussion. This contribution comes in two parts; in the first, we will establish a clear goal and then identify the various difficulties we need to overcome to attain it. In the second, we will propose an approach that may surmount some of those difficulties and propose concrete ways and means of achieving our objective. It also assumes that the term ‘migrant workers’ refers to those who are employed in foreign countries.

Section 1: The goal.

It would be reasonable to suggest that our aim would be to serve two logically inseparable purposes viz., to make a useful contribution to the national food production and to enable our target group to earn a decent livelihood through food production and sale. As it will be seen later, there are excellent reasons for us to limit our goal to this end.

Section 2: General feasibility.

Let us first consider some elementary criteria of feasibility:

• Is there adequate physical and political security in the proposed project area?
• Is the land tenure there secure?
• Is the area’s infra-structure adequate for the proposed food production? This does not mean having the most modern infra-structure, but one adequate for the programme.
• Does the physical state or the general health of the participants permit their active participation in it?
• Is there sufficient arable land procurable at an affordable price?
• If food production is not possible in the area, are there opportunities forfood sale?

Section 3: Specific feasibility.

Here, we are concerned with two very different factors viz., the willingness and the ability of a proposed group fruitfully to participate in a programme. Irrespective of the availability of technical expertise and every other requisite resource, no target group would engage in a programme unless it is willing to do so. Their willingness depends on their belief that it is desirable as it serves their interest. When a target group believes that the current programme does so, its members would be willing to participate in the programme. This willingness cannot be taken for granted.

Those who are willing to participate in the programme, would be able to do so only if they possess the required knowledge of what should be done and how. But their successful carrying out of the programme depends on their possession of an adequate skill to do so. This knowledge and skill constitutes the competence the participants of the programme should have.

Section 4: Desires of migrant workers.

Let us now consider what impact the real desires and abilities of the target group would have on their actual willingness to join the proposed programme. This requires us to place the migrant workers in four broad groups whose aspirations and abilities vary widely:

• The qualified professionals like technical experts, health personnel, academics, etc., who may return home back to their professions after having improved their financial status or procure similar employment in the same or in another country.
• Medium grade technicians like electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, drivers etc., who generally wish to return home to open their own business.
• Semi-skilled workers like waiters, labourers, porters, etc., whose number is considerable and who do not possess skills other than what they may have acquired during their foreign employment. Their competence in food production and sale is often very limited.
• Domestic servants; a very large number of women from the poorest countries are employed in Middle Eastern lands and Europe in this capacity. Usually, they possess few skills pertinent to the present task.

The abilities and the limitations in those four groups may seem to pose a considerable challenge to the success of the proposed project. However, it pales into insignificance if we should look at the reality of their desires and aspirations with respect to their willingness to invest their earnings in food production and sale. Based on our own observations and others who are not blind to the harsh realities of life, the following list represents what the majority of migrant workers in the last three groups and their dependents desire to achieve with their earnings:

• Purchase consumer electronics, jewellery, clothes, electrical household equipment, etc.,which are often for display.
• Repair or build a home which generally consumes a considerable part of their earnings.
• Settlement of debt.
• Their own marriage or that of their dependents.
• Start their own small business.

We mention these in order to emphasise that it is not so easy to secure the willingness of a considerable number of migrant workers and their dependents, especially in areas where their participation in the programme would be of the greatest personal and public utility. We will discuss how this may be achieved later on.

Consider on the other hand the reasonably successful results that obtained in Calabria and Sicily a little over a century ago. Some of the migrants from those areas to Argentina and United States of North America returned to their villages with sufficient funds to purchase land and engage in agriculture or start small family-run businesses. Notice that in all these instances, they were contadini who were familiar with cultivation of land, which mirrors the current situation in Tajikistan.

Moreover, in both instances the people involved were more or less firmly anchored to their local culture. This cultural anchor is often very lose among most migrant workers especially those who come from less affluent countries whose independence is of a recent date. Such people are all too often prone to absorb the thoughtless consumerism prevalent in their host countries.

Provided such willingness and competence obtain, success of each programme depends on deciding on an achievable goal as its objective.

Section 5: National goal.

Making a useful contribution to national food production would entail:

• A qualitative or a quantitative increase in food production.
• It would make food produce by the programme available to the local end-users at an affordable cost. Its export does not often achieve this result.
• Its production will be environmentally benign and sustainable.
• It will promote local agricultural biodiversity.

Section 6: Identifying a project specific goal.

In identifying a project specific goal in food production, we need to consider the following:

• What kinds and quantities of food are most needed in the area covered by the project.
• What kind of required food may be best produced in the area with respect to its soil, geography and climate? 
• Do the participants have sufficient competence in cooperative food production and sale?
• Apart from remitters of funds and their dependents, who else may be included and on what terms? This is very important in order to optimise the rewards of the migrant workers and their dependents, for in all ‘competitive’ food systems intermediaries derive inordinate profits at the expense of food producers and the end-users. This would hardly induce foreign workers their earnings in such schemes.
• What precisely is meant by ‘agri-business?’ We assume that it means competitive food production and sale. Can those who selected this term explain how a ‘competitive’ activity may proceed without leaving some losers? Such activities often include outside intermediaries whose attributes we have just described. We do not care to enrich outsiders at the expense of migrant workers and their dependents.

Section 7: Participant competence.

The competence required by the participants can be placed in three categories:

• Food production including cultivation, animal husbandry and fishing.
• food preservation, packing, storage and transport.
• Sale.

A participant may acquire competence in any one or more of these according to one’s aptitude for the task one intends to undertake. The challenge here is how to impart this competence to those who wish to participate in the programme.

Section 8: Demography of the migrant workers.

A careful survey of the demographic distribution of migrant workers in their homelands will show that a significant majority of them come from deprived areas of cities or towns. This makes it rather difficult for many potential participants to engage in food production to a worthwile extent. Moreover, arable land in such countries is already owned by cultivators or agri-businesses and land value is at a premium. Moreover, the migrant workers may not be willing to move out of their home areas.

Section 9: Financing mechanism.

Even though its details are not very clear, the pilot programme seems to have deviced an adequate financing mechanism. However, in our view, it appears to channel an inordinate portion of the funds on infra-structural improvements, which ought to be addressed by the host governments involved.

Section 10:

The question then, is how to resolve the difficulties outlined in previous sections in a realistic manner, so that we may device a flexible generic programme framework that could be fleshed out to suit a wide variety of circumstances. While the criteria described in section 5 should be always met, we may allow a certain degree of flexibility in some other areas as long as they are not at the expense of the remitters of foreign exchange and the end-users.

In the following sections we will propose a more or less simultaneous sets of actions, each designed to deal with the challenges we have already outlined. Readers may notice that when a course of action is not necessary, one may skip it and proceed to the next. Every attempt has been made to ensure the completeness of both the analytical and the synthetical parts of this proposal.

Section 11:

In order to ascertain the general feasibility of launching the programme in an area, the information pertinent to the requirements given in section 2 should be collected. It is often advisable to gather this information by personal inspection rather than relying on public or the official sources.

Section 12: Participant willingness.

The pilot programme does not describe how it ensured the participant willingness; perhaps, in the area it was launched, it was not a concern. However, if one looks at the distribution of the migrant workers on a world map, it will be clear that most of them come from areas  we have pointed out in section 3. Their willingness to participate would be frequently limited to sale of food owing to  their location, current aspirations and lack of competence. Most of them may meanwhile show some interest in sale of food if they could be convinced of its long-term feasibility and profit.

On the other hand, in places where socio-economic and cultural conditions akin to those  of the pilot project area obtain, a generically similar projects may be successfully carried out. In order to ensure that it meets the conditions given in section 5, following information should be gathered from reliable local sources. Please note we do not mean ‘research’ or ‘data collection’ here. Every effort should be made to consult local cultivators, fishermen, keepers of household animals, etc.

• What crops, household animals are best reared in the project area; types of fish caught. Refer to local food culture for real world guidance.
• What methods of environmentally benign and sustainable modes of food production have been used in the project area? If some of those do not meet those two conditions, what appropriate modes may be used? Please note we have applied the phrase ‘environmentally benign and sustainable’ for a simple reason. Cultivation in a sealed environment like a green house may be sustainable, but the deforestation of an area it requires for its establishment and its obvious interference with the local solar heat exchange alters the local climate which could often have a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment, hence it is not benign to it. As the world is now infested with a myriad of ‘logies’ of varying triviality, we will simply use a phrase everyone could understand.
• Ascertain whether it would be possible to incorporate the food production part of the current scheme into a joint venture with other family farmers, fishermen and/or small holders of the area in order to establish a food production cooperative. It must be clearly understood that such participants are not to receive any financial support from the programme while they may benefit from technical expertise, joint purchase mechanism and such fringe benefits from it. Their inclusion in the programme could provide valuable mentors to those who are new comers to agriculture.
• Remitters or their kin in the project area who lack the necessary aptitude for agrivultural pursuits may engage in any one or more of the following on a cooperative basis:

I.    Preservation and packing of the project output.

II.    Its transport.

III.    Its sale to local/distant consumers.

Section 13: Urban migrant workers.

In the previous section, we hinted at a modified version of the pilot project in which this group may gainfully participate. Further, an examination of migrant worker demography in their home countries would show that a considerable number of them live in towns and cities where it would be very difficult to secure arable land at an affordable price. Therefore, we propose that such potential participants are incorporated into the programme in any one or more of the following ways:

• If they are interested in establishing a small business, then assist them to form a cooperative with others having the same background in the area to ---

I.    Sell fresh or preserved produce.

II.    Family-run small restaurant or a cash and carry place. In most countries in which migrant workers live, school feeding programmes are unknown. However, employees in public offices and private companies often purchase their meals from the cheapest places as their salaries are not high. They will provide a dependable market to the proposed establishments.

Section 14: Where to buy food for sale.

Urban food sales outlets described in the previous section could purchase their supplies from two sources depending on the availability of what is required.

• Programme participants engaged in food production.
• Nearest family farms, small holders and independent fishermen.

This linkage of food producers and sellers has several major advantages:

• It enables the programme to include those who are able to produce food
• As well as those who cannot. The latter could support both the former and family farms and small holders which is highly desirable.
• It offers those who cannot produce food a means of earning a decent livelihood on a long-term basis.
• It ensures the food producers in the programme a continuous demand for their output.

Section 15: Ways and means 1.

We shall here consider food production cooperatives. It assumes that the following has been ascertained with reference to the relevant sections above.

• General feasibility of establishment as outlined in section 2.
• What to produce with reference to sections 5 and 6.
• Are there a number of willing migrant workers in the area enough to establish a food production cooperative? Their number may be increased by local family farmers and small holders as indicated below. If so, would they be able to acquire sufficient agricultural competence within a reasonable period of time?
• Are there family farmers and small holder in the area who are willing to be mentors to the programme participants in exchange for fringe benefits as described in section 3?

If this screening proves satisfactory, then we may proceed to the next step.

Section 16: Establishment of farm cooperatives.

We think that association with already practising family farmers and small holders in the area is indispensible for the success of the programme. Their guidance and support would be essential to avoid long and non-productive agricultural training .

FAO and the local extention services could undertake to  establish the following:

• Farm cooperatives with a suitable mix of farmers and the programme participants.
• A joint purchasing mechanism for seed, implements, etc. Here the financial support will be limited to programme participants while the their mentors would benefit from lower costs.
• A mechanism for technical support.
• Whenever suitable, linking these food producers with migrant worker sales units in town and cities.

Section 17: Incorporation of urban migrant workers.

Vast majority of today’s migrant workers constitute this group whose members have very few opportunities to engage in food production in order to earn a decent living. However, by linking them with the food producing participants of the current programme, family farms and other small holders to be their salesmen, we may attain a mutually beneficial goal.

They could purchase their produce at a reasonable price and sell it either as it is or as ready-to-eat food. As has been mentioned earlier, this ought to be done on a cooperative basis where several migrant workers could engage in it as a joint venture. A single family may not have sufficient capital, personnel or competence to undertake this. This programme variant has the additional advantage of supporting family farms and small holders at no extra cost.

Section 18: Ways and means 2.

FAO and the local authorities should work together to make the goal of section 17 achievable by undertaking the following:

• Improvement or procurement of suitable locales.
• Acquisition of sales competence; often this is much easier than imparting agricultural competence.
• Establish contact with food producers described earlier.
• Set up a common purchase mechanism for all the programme sales outlets; this is often a one-time purchase whether it is a green grocer or a family-run cafe.

Section 19: Ensuring participants’ willingness and finance.

We are convinced that much remains to be done before a significant number of migrant workers would be willing to invest their earnings in the proposed programme. We do not question its worth, but public conception of agricultural pursuits being what it is, we cannot remain complaisant and hope for the best. We recommend a pro-active action by FAO and national authorities to underline the importance of agriculture and cooperative food systems by every means at their disposal.

A wide-spread and continued publicity campaign would be needed to achieve this objective. At the same time, it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of establishing a fund to which migrant workers may contribute while working. When they return home, this fund may be used for the proposed programme. As it would be completely voluntary, one can be fairly certain that only those who are motivated and competent would join it.

Section 20: Conclusion.

We have carefully assessed the pilot programme in Tajikistan, and find that its success reflects the results that obtained around a century ago in some parts of Southern Europe. In both instances, people involved tenaciously held onto their traditional values. Unfortunately, vast majority of migrant workers of today come from former colonial domains with a very different cultural background. Moreover, most of them come from densely populated urban centra.

If carefully screened as it has been described, it would be possible to set up the proposed programme in some areas. Inclusion of the urban migrant workers in it would  be useful to sustain the food producing part of the programme. Further, participation of the former would lend support not only to themselves, but also to family farmers and small holder who are constantly under threat. A ‘save for the future’ plan proposed may prove useful not only in financing the programme, but also in ensuring the commitment of the participants.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

Since 2018, FAO Georgia has been implementing a 6.7 Mio USD matching grant program targeting smallholder farmers, SMEs and cooperatives while respecting two bottom lines: inclusiveness and a sustainable food value chain approach. The program involves a matching grant and a matching contribution to be paid by the beneficiary. This format could easily be used to channel remittances.

To help us manage the hundreds of applications received in the most transparent and efficient manner, our grant team is relying on an online grant management platform which serves as the main interface between the applicant, FAO, the donor, and any other ad hoc stakeholder.

The strong knowledge developed by the team coupled with this digital approach has proven efficient and shows a great potential for replicability for similar programs globally.

More information about the ENPARD III program in Georgia: 

In the last two years, FAO and the EU awarded a total amount of circa USD 5.1 million as a matching grant to the agricultural producers in Georgia. The grant support co-funds various capital investments in Georgia’s agriculture sector to increase competitiveness, create extra jobs, and ensure stability in food supplies.

A matching grant is one-time investment support for agricultural producers who pledge to make a financial contribution, too. 

With the fourth cycle of grants launched in 2020 Georgian farmers, rural households, cooperatives, and small and medium producers operating in 22 municipalities could make capital investments – purchase new tractors and machinery, optimize processing and storage with new automated solutions, and buy equipment for large-scale dairy, vegetable, and fruit productions, among many other improvements. The grants program is multidimensional. In addition to the direct investment, EU and FAO also provide the beneficiaries with innovative knowledge in production technology. Through the practical and theoretical trainings, farmers learn how to increase the quality and volume of crops, reduce expenses, and minimize the negative impact on the environment.

“The EU and FAO grants programme in Georgia is a unique initiative in the region which helps Georgian farmers and agricultural producers to increase their competitiveness and raise incomes,” says Raimund Jehle, FAO representative in Georgia. “Co-funded capital investments - effective and climate-smart agricultural equipment - are aimed to ease producers’ access to innovation and make farms and agricultural enterprises more sustainable and resilient in the times of the pandemic.”

One of the selected farmers is Malkhaz Mirinashvili, from Kvareli municipality, who, together with his family, has been farming for decades. The family processes a nine-hectare land plot growing tomato, cucumber, cabbage, and maize, while also taking care of a vineyard. With the support from FAO and the EU, the farmer was able to purchase a brand-new tractor, plough, and cultivator.

“Our village is quite large, and we don’t have enough agricultural machinery for rent available,” Malkhaz Mirinashvili stated. “Sometimes, the wait list for the equipment is so long, that we miss the harvest time, and our produce goes bad. With this new equipment, not only we can save time and money, but we also started to look for a new plot of land, about 10 hectares in size, to double our production. Without these new machines, we wouldn’t be able to do it.”

“Winemaking has been our family tradition for centuries,” Manana Bolkvadze, a winemaker from Keda municipality in Mountainous Adjara says. Manana and her family cultivate a two-hectare vineyard, growing Tsolikauri and Chkhaveri grapevine varieties. Thanks to the EU and FAO, Manana was able to purchase new wine tanks and finish the construction of her wine cellar.

“I wasn’t able to sell as much wine during the pandemic, as usual, I had a hard time storing the wine and lost part of the product,” she said. “With these new tanks this issue was resolved, and the quality of my wine greatly improved.”

EU and FAO grants are awarded to small-, medium-, and large-scale producers with matching grant amounts ranging from USD 1 000 up to 150 000, co-funding up to 60 percent of the investment costs. 

“We were overwhelmed by the interest of the farmers and other agricultural actors when we started the programme,” says Matthieu Rouviere, the Grants Programme Manager “but with the close cooperation with the Ministry and the EUD, and thanks to a specific tailor-made online platform, we are managing and we can easily replicate,” says Rouviere. 

A fifth cycle of the Grants Programme is going to be launched in 2022. 

The EU is supporting agriculture and rural development in Georgia through the ENPARD programme. Implemented in 2013 with a total budget of EUR 234.5 million, the main goal of ENPARD is to provide economic opportunities in rural areas and reduce poverty in Georgia. 

First and foremost, it is pertinent that Government should prioritize the validation of socio-cultural and economic activities at local levels and particularly focus on supporting smallholder resilience rather than making the agroecological practices a politicized agenda.

To measure economic performance rate, an enabling environment must be in place for fiscal policies in support to smallholders. There is limited support to rural farmer resilience and we believe the power of the rural farmers is essential to the cumulative outputs and gross GDP of each country's agriculture sector. Yet these people are marginalized without sufficient support in terms of insurance, micro finance and technological support and technical assistance.

We also believe the promotion of a biobased and biodiversity approach to food systems would help actualise the UN Agenda on Decade of Ecosystem Restoration where more lands can be yielded up for restoration, desertification is compared and practices can be made efficient through use of existing and and new technologies like irrigation, smart farming practices and the promotion of climate resilient / Climate Smart Agriculture.

When aggregated support is received at the local level and the process is made transparent through adoption of new technologies, the remittances can be made easier right at local level. This is why both policies and investment meet productivity, efficiency and economic growth towards addressing zero hunger.

Samuel Adunreke

Executive President

Innovea Development Foundation

1. I am a business representative and I believe that the involvement of migrant workers from rural areas in agricultural business is an important activity of the government and development organizations. Labor migration in the short term allows migrant to earn money to support their families, but does not solve the problem of employment and obtaining a permanent income in the long term. Many migrant workers from rural areas do not have the necessary information to make the right business decision, do not have sufficient knowledge to invest, create and manage a business. Government agencies, development organizations and business associations could be sources of providing the right information and knowledge for migrant workers.

2. The absolute advantage of the share subsidy program is the motivation of an entrepreneur to organize a business and invest his own finances in his business. Getting a subsidy is important both for a startup and for the existing business to offer new goods and services on the market. Among the disadvantages of such programs, I would attribute the incorrect concept of the subsidy offer and insufficient knowledge about the market, goods and services that such a program plans to subsidize. It is important to finance the development and supply of a new product or service to the market, including its promotion, in order to achieve sustainable demand for a new product or service. But at the same time avoid subsidizing business transactions for the sale of this product or service. By the way, this principle is fundamental in the approach of Business Development Services, and it is not new.

3. Lending to small businesses at low interest rates. At the same time, it is important to offer migrants a set of ready-made proposals for organizing small businesses (a kind of business plan) that would be coordinated with credit institutions. So, a certain ready-made business plan, for example, for the organization of a small farm for milk production (up to 20 heads) with the indication of companies supplying dairy breeds of cows, feed producers, veterinarians and other parties involved. A migrant invests some of his money, receives the rest as a loan for the organization of a farm according to a previously adapted business plan for him, according to which he begins to run his small business.

4. I do not know of similar programs that subsidize or support migrant businesses in my country or neighboring countries.

Identifying an effective and efficient mechanism to boost the investments in agribusiness, particularly in the developing world, is one of the daunting tasks development partners, the international community, and other stakeholders face in the contemporary world. First of all, authorities find it challenging to invest in this sector given the low yields in terms of forex earnings. Secondly, development partners face difficulties raising such money needed to boost agribusiness, especially with such a multitude of problems as the coronavirus, climate change, and refugee problems compounded by the Russia-Ukraine War. Amidst such issues, the discussion of finding a matching approach to channel remittances into sustainable agribusiness investments is timely and relevant. Below are my suggestions;

1. Increase investment partnerships, for instance, FAO partners with World Bank, IMF, Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the local authorities in the host country. In this way, a consolidated fund aimed at agribusiness can be created, which bolsters the sector;

2. Digitalize these programs for better data capture, and avoid duplication of data both at the grassroots, implementation, and policy levels;

3. Diversify the entry-points into the agribusiness investments. For instance, most donor countries prefer to transact with the central governments. However, with the excessive bureaucracy associated with these authorities, the policy and implementation programs are constantly delayed, if not abandoned altogether, making the programs' final beneficially suffer. Thus, development partners should create a corridor of dealing with other stakeholders such as NGOs, who are directly involved in such development activities. Noteworthy, particularly in the developing world, this might be problematic as the central governments sometimes find it difficult for such other entities to receive external funding. It is a commonplace that many NGOs and other civil society organizations have had their activities terminated in most developing countries, particularly those whose democracy is debatable. 

All said, the debate continues, however, the global policy dynamics also play a pivotal role, and there is a need for continued bargaining and negotiations, as some of this funding at times does not come in time as required. On the other hand, the requested funding will come less than requested. 

 

Congratulations for the initiative. The climate change effects on the earth needs to be tackle using sustainable approaches which are also in line with the SDGs. Therefore, from my perspectives, the agriculture and livestock sector should be based on agroecology or sustainable livestock systems (e.g. silvopastoral systems) and also part of grant programmes that target migrants, migrant-sending households and returnees. Otherwise, the negative effects caused by green revolution (agrochemicals and fertilizers) will persist and it is time to rethink these practices (and do not potentialize it by doing business as usual...), especially for migrants that will start a new life somewhere.

The livestock farming system in northern Pakistan comprises a huge resource base comprising cattle, sheep, goats, buffaloes and camel animals and poultry birds, in addition to wildlife. The animals are mostly reared in herds of sheep and goats in the remote rural areas or some dairy cattle and buffaloes in the urban and periurban areas. The farming families associated with such businesses belong to lower socio-economic backgrounds; hence their rich natural resource base is unable to provide them a graceful livelihood. In addition, the products coming out of such setups are not quality certified and lack any traceability towards a farming or processing centre following good livestock practices.

Role of the public sector organisations is at minimum level and rather hostile, in responding to such issues and even prestigious international organisations like FAO-UN fail to integrate good practices into mandates of these organisations. This is evident from the FAO KP Livestock Action Plan 2019 prepared by the author but prevented by the powerful stakeholders across the livestock value chain from being implemented. 

Such farming families do possess qualified kids, usually with graduate level education, However, the young generation are afraid and fed-up with the issues and challenges in the farming and products processing setups. Matching grants may be provided to such farming and products processing families, especially thier educated kids, to establish their viable entrepreneurship models, linked with technical, quality control and marketing bodies.

English translation below

Считаете ли вы, что правительствам следует прилагать усилия для содействия инвестированию средств мигрантов и возвращающихся лиц в агробизнес в сельских районах с высоким уровнем оттока рабочей силы?

Да,  правительству следует прилагать усилия в этом направлении. Почему? Нужно создать ниши в агробизнесе, где востребованы деньги мигрантов, а это без помощи правительства невозможно. Кроме этого, необходимы усилия  для передачи необходимых для агробизнеса знаний: нужны тренинги по разным видам агробизнеса, финансовой грамотности, правильному планированию и прогнозированию, умению использовать передовые технологии. Это без поддержки государства невозможно.

Какую роль в содействии таким инвестициям следует играть прочим заинтересованным сторонам (НПО, представители научных кругов, международные организации, доноры и т. д.)?

Все стороны, имеющие опыт работы в агросекторе, финансировании, обучению и тренингах могут быть задействованы в этом процессе.

Каковы, по вашему мнению, плюсы и минусы программ долевых субсидий? Что следует учитывать при содействии их осуществлению и их развертывании?

Плюсы: конечный бенефициар программы получает помощь и тех. содействие по приемлемой для него цене. Это стимулирует фермеров.

Минусы:

-обычно такую помощь получают крупные фермы, которые имеют влияние на рынок страны. Мелкие фермеры не получают таких субсидий.

- неправильное понимание субсидий и целей проекта- фермеры стремятся получить субсидию или грант, но не могут всегда использовать субсидию для развития своей фермы, не ставят стратегических долгосрочных целей.

Какие другие модели или подходы вы бы порекомендовали для содействия инвестированию денежных переводов в сельское хозяйство и агробизнес? Считаете ли вы, что они предпочтительнее, чем программы долевых субсидий, и если да, то почему?

Чтобы содействовать этому, нужна тех. помощь:

- с учетом изменения климата, создать централизованные базы данных в стране в разрезе с/х культур

- планировать тщательно с/к, их обьем в разрезе регионов

- создать цепочки (value chain) производства от производителя до потребителя

- если нет возможности вывоза и реализации свежей продукции, применить новые методы длительного хранения( заморозка, сушка, вяление и т.д.), сертифицировать продукцию для продвижения на внешних рынках

- разработать целостную концепцию развития  агросектора

- на гос. уровне дать налоговые и др льготы производителяс продовольствия

Использование ден. средств мигрантов можно комбинировть с субсидиями. Когда вкладываются собственные средства, растёт заинтересованность  в результате и ответственность. так как с/х имеет много рисков, субсидии приветствуются.

Знаете ли вы о программах долевых субсидий, которые отвечают изложенным ниже критериям для включения и которые были осуществлены в целях направления денежных переводов на цели развития агробизнеса?

 В РТ были выполнены программы субсидирования с/х правительством( в частности поддержали производителей  картофеля) , они выполнялись Министерством труда и занятости. Из за неправильного выбора клиентов, отсутствия опыта в оценке фермы и клиентов, она была не достаточно успешной.

Необходимо привлечь к таким программам грамотных агрономов, юристов и МФО ( Имон, Хумо) , которые имеют большой опыт работы в сельских регионах.

Do you think that Governments should make efforts to facilitate the investment of migrants and returnees in agribusiness in rural areas with a high level of labor outflow?

Yes, the Government should make efforts in this direction. Why? It is necessary to create niches in agribusiness where migrants' money is in demand, and this is impossible without government’s help. In addition, efforts are needed to transfer the knowledge necessary for agribusiness: trainings on various types of agribusinesses, financial literacy, proper planning and forecasting, and the ability to use advanced technologies are needed. This is impossible without the state support.

What role should other stakeholders (NGOs, academia, international organizations, donors, etc.) play in facilitating such investments?

All parties with experience in the agricultural sector, financing, education, and training can be involved in this process.

What, in your opinion, are the pros and cons of matching grant programmes? What should be considered when facilitating their implementation and deployment?

Pros: the final beneficiary of the program receives assistance and technical assistance at an acceptable price for him. This encourages farmers.

Minuses:

- usually, such assistance is received by large farms that have influence on the country's market. Small farmers do not receive such subsidies.

- incorrect understanding of subsidies and project goals - farmers seek to receive a subsidy or grant, but they cannot always use the subsidy to develop their farm, they do not set strategic long-term goals.

What other models or approaches would you recommend to facilitate the investment of funds in agriculture and agribusiness? Do you think they are more preferable to share-based subsidy programs, and if so, why?

To facilitate this, technical assistance is needed:

- considering climate change, create centralized databases in the country in the context of agricultural crops

- plan agricultural crops and their volume carefully in the context of regions

- create value chain of production from the manufacturer to the consumer

- if it is not possible to export and sell fresh products, apply new methods of long-term storage (freezing, drying, dry-curing, etc.), certify products for promotion in foreign markets

- develop a holistic concept for the development of the agricultural sector

- at the state level, give tax and other benefits to food producers

The use of migrants' money can be combined with subsidies. When own funds are invested, interest in the result and responsibility grow. Since agriculture has many risks, subsidies are welcomed.

Do you know about the matching grant programmes that meet the criteria for inclusion set out below and that have been implemented to direct money transfers for the development of agribusiness?

In the Republic of Tajikistan, agricultural subsidy programs were implemented by the government (in particular, potato producers were supported). They were carried out by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. Due to the wrong choice of clients, lack of experience in evaluating farms and clients, it was not successful enough.

It is necessary to involve competent agronomists, lawyers and IFOs (Imon, Humo) who have extensive experience in such programs in rural areas.