# Agro-ecological products qualification and certification participatory initiatives effects of Brazilian public policies

Eric Sabourin<fnref n="1" />

In the last years in Brazil, beside External Audit firm Certification (EAC), various participative certification instruments, behind the figure of Social Control certification, have been set up between producers or between producers and consumers (Medaets & Medeiros, 2004; Brasil, 2002; MAPA, 2008). These alternatives are due to the development of local agro-ecological markets and the dynamics of the effects of reputation (Hess & Ostrom, 2007). This paper propose a comparative analysis of three certification systems (EAC, Network Participative Certification – NPC and Social Control Certification – SCC) in which the advantages and limitations of auto centered and decentralized certification are highlighted as an autonomy process both for family farmers and consumers units and organizations.

Selling ecological farm products is not just a matter of capitalistic exchange. Although it is now the norm for many of the small and family farms of Brazil (Conterato, 2004; Ploeg, 2008), one still see socially controlled markets which is also governed by the rules of reciprocity and redistribution, the two different economic forms defined by Polanyi (1957) beside merchant exchange.

When the producer's name is at stake, reciprocity relationships generate values of trust, reputation, honor and accountability. It is often these ethical values that guarantee the legitimacy and the authority of the certification process of quality and origin standards: geographical indications, production process, ethnic or cultural identity. In fact, it thus creates a territoriality of reciprocity around a specific product. However, a part from this group of qualified producers and also for the marketing of other products which are not quality-labeled by these producers, it is the rules of the capitalistic exchange market that apply. So, qualification and certification could also induce exclusion. That is why, in this type of process, there has to be some sort of interface between production and the market. The quality certification mechanism can reintroduce a dimension of reciprocity and solidarity (the domestic unit, the peasant community, the co-operative) into the capitalist exchange market system.

The communication will also examine how these grassroots certification instruments have influenced the public policies programs in Brazil and the main trade off and synergy between public policies and these instruments. The results come from a research based on three case studies in Brazil, of family farmers producing and marketing their own agro-ecological production.

The method is based on a comparative study of three Brazilian recent qualification and certification systems of family farm products: an External Audit Certification firm (Ecocert Brazil) with the Cooperagrepa, an agro-ecological cooperative of Amazonia (Mato Grosso), the Ecovida Participative Certification Network in the South of Brazil (Santa Catarina) and the agro-ecological markets group EcoBorborema for the Social Control Certification experience in the Nordeste (Paraiba).

The comparative scheme examines the social and institutional trajectory of any initiatives and some four key elements of quality control: the checking means, the certifier organization functioning, the means of communicating quality, the costs and its analyses their effects or influence on local or national public policy certification instruments.

In fact, the NPC system works as an interface between the logics of reciprocity and exchange on two counts. Firstly, it creates a link between domestic production and market exchange by protecting the qualified production from the effects of competition. Furthermore, the guarantee and control of product quality in the NPC system is based on reciprocity and mutual aid between peers. However, this virtually

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR ART-DEV, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>
gratuitous certification mechanism (3 days of work/family/year) defies the capitalistic mercantile logic but at the same time it enables producers to enter into dialogue with it, especially concerning international standards required for the export market. In this sense, NPC is a hybrid certification mechanism suitable for systems that combine the logics of exchange and reciprocity.

The results show an important advance with the institutionalization of participative certification by Brazilian legislation, with a specific set of norms and its bureaucracy services, implanted by the Ministry of Agriculture (MAPA, 2007). The main expectation of a certification system is that it should lead to reducing the asymmetry of information and fraud and/or opportunism. The three certification systems studied all fulfill this goal with no significant differences in terms of results, but with an important difference in terms of costs and processes: participative and social certification is quite cheaper.

The capitalist exchange market sets the homogeneity of firms' standardized certification norms against heterogeneity procedures or Network Participative Certification registration modalities. Certification resulting from External Audit shows some difficulties to integrate and translate the diversity of production systems and conditions, the diverse realities of different countries, terroirs and producers, and particularly social and cultural realities.

This is one of the assets of certification by social compliance. It should not, however, become a complete substitute to technical compliance. This is why the producer's opinion as peers, and that of the consumers as judges, is absolutely essential.

Notions of reputation, trust and knowledge sharing are at the heart of the qualification process of products (especially agro-food products). Social pressure has been recognized for its efficiency in the process of guaranteeing quality credibility. In Brazil, several authors have put forward the idea of developing the debate about social compliance as an efficient alternative mechanism in terms of quality control in the frame of family peasant farming.

## Some referencies

- Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. 2002. Instrução Normativa n°06.

- Conterato MA.2004. A mercantilização da agricultura familiar do Alto Uruguai/RS:um estudo de caso no município de Três Palmeiras. Porto Alegre,UFRGS/PGDR, Master.

- Hess C., Ostrom E. (eds) 2007 Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007, 381 pp.

- Medaets J.P., Medeiros J.X., 2004. Ação coletiva no controle da qualidade da produção orgânica familiar: Análise comparativa entre a certificação por auditoria externa e a certificação participativa em rede. In XLII Congresso da SOBER, 2004

- Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento, Secretaria de desenvolvimento Agropecuario e Cooperativismo. 2008. Produtos organicos, sistemas participativos de garantia. Brasilia. 45 p.

- Ploeg J.D. Van der 2008, The New peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of Empire and Globalization. London, Sterling, Earthscan, 356p.

- Polanyi K., Arensberg C., 1975, Les systèmes économiques dans l'histoire et dans la théorie, París, Librairie Larousse. Ed. originale:1957: Trade and Market in the Early empires. Economics in History and Theory.

- Wilkinson, J. 2008. Mercados, Redes e Valores: O Novo Mundo da Agricultura Familiar. Porto Alegre, Ed da UFRGS, Serie Estudos Rurais
# Coffee chain in El Salvador: an approach on the influence on the sustainable development of the Western Region

Gilma Lizama<fnref n="1" />

El Salvador, has limited territory -20.742 square - kilometers and with a dense population, about 6.4 million people, which leads to the search for alternatives to optimize insufficient resources in order to meet the needs of the population. In the specific case of the coffee chain, it has many advantages, in this sense, since underpins many grower families. Besides coffee plantations provides secondary forest that adds 7% to the 4% that currently exists as primary forest in the country.

The Global Commodity Chains (CGM) approach originally proposed by (Gereffi & Korzeniewicz, 1994), is used to analyse the relationships between agents along the chain, from growers to the different presentations it reaches consumers. By distinguishing the various links long the chain is, permits to identify its agents and its functions. By this way, public policies to strengthen competitiveness can be set, especially regarding upgrading processed for small and medium growers.

According to the structure of the coffee chain identified in El Salvador, 86% of coffee producers are classified as small - grown less than 10 acres of land - and is in the western region where it accounts for 45% of total producers who grow more than 50% of the country that is dedicated to coffee growing area. Also in this region there are located around 70% of country's coffee mills, which together capture similar percentage of domestic production. Some of these are exporters, parts of them establish relationships with other exporters and transnational corporations in order to gain market share and guarantee its supply of grain.

The analysis of sustainable development, on the other hand, involves the construction of indicators of different dimensions, which may allow to get an approximated idea of the development level that in a given region or geographical area. In this regard, three dimensions of sustainable development are analyzed: the economic, social and environmental ones. Sustainability is analyzed considering the definition of sustainable development, coined by the United Nations, presented in the Brundtland Report in the year 1987 (Gómez de Segura, pp.15-17). In that order, cultivation of coffee in El Salvador is attributed great importance because of its contribution as a currency generator, jobs and their valuable contribution to carbon sequestration and conservation of biodiversity in flora and fauna.

In this way, CGM is used for to analyse along the entire Salvadoran coffee chain, identifying the role of the players involved in the chain and those linked actors in different segments. Generally, the links identified are three: the first link in the distribution channel that runs from the farm to the coffee mills; the second link envolves coffee mills to foreign importers or roasters; and finally, the last link of the channel runs from the roasters to consumers.

Approximately 95% of the coffee flows directly from growers to coffee mills and from these to foreign importers. Coffee provided by growers is coffee sherry without any processing. This is because most producers are small and do not have enough financial resources to acquire technology and, additional to this, before taking the harvest it is already committed to the coffee mills/ exporters, since they provide funding for the harvest.

According to the latest census conducted by the Consejo Salvadoreño del Café (CSC), there are about 75 coffee mills, most of whom are also exporters. Certain larger coffee mills may be identified, who establish agreements with transnational corporations to commercialize the grain. The amount of coffee for domestic consumption is minimal, around 1%.

<footnote n="1">1. Universidad de El Salvador, El Salvador.</footnote>
Since almost all the coffee is exported, in the last link roasters agents led by transnational corporations are in charge of carrying out the respective grain processing and distribution in different presentations. Finally appears the consumer provides by supermarkets, and coffee houses.

The analysis of players participating in the chain, permits to establish the relationships of coffee industry with sustainable development the region, especially considering the presence of transnational corporations who operates coffee mills/exporters and integration strategies. Different variables were chosen in each of the above three dimensions, with indicators (according to available official data)in order to develop an integrated sustainable development index.

The methodology for developing the integrated sustainable development index, is the proposal by Sergio Sepúlveda in 2008 and initially applied by the Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA). Based on this methodology indicators to analyse each of the analysis units (41 municipalities of the western region) they are constructed in each of the three dimensions separately and together as an integrated index; using a function to homogenize the measurement units of different variables, in order to establish the relationship among of these with the development status (positive or negative).

In the economic dimension, proxy variables at local (municipality level) are: open unemployment, employment generated by the primary sector and the average household income. The relationship o unemployment with the state of development is negative, given that higher unemployment is associated with lower welfare families; in the case of employment in the primary sector, a positive relationship is associated, since these municipalities are mostly engaged in related sector and in the case of average household income activities, a positive relationship, as partners that higher income better able to achieve their needs.

Four variables are considered in the social dimension related to education and access to basic services. Illiteracy, is considered with a negative relationship with the state of development desired, since the higher percentage of illiterates the fewer opportunities to improve their living conditions; access to potable water and electricity is considered positive, since water quality is critical to improving the quality of life requirement and the need for access to stable electricity and lighting; and on the other hand, the fact of not having access to health service, is graded with a negative relationship, because there are aspects of health that are associated with health problems, especially gastrointestinal, affecting the quality of life.

In the environmental dimension there are considered the following variables: households that burn trash, throw garbage into the street and throw sewage into the street, are associated with a negative relationship with the state of development; likewise the use of firewood for cooking, since it causes pollution; and forest area with natural forest management is considered with a positive effect, given that this contributes by carbon capture and diversity of flora and fauna conservation in the country.

Once an index for each of the three dimensions is calculated, the simple sustainable development integrated index is obtained (equal weight to each of the dimensions). Finally, the state of development is classified according to the value in the following ranges: 0 to less than 2, is said to be collapsing; 2 to less than 4 development is critical; 4 to less than 6 is unstable; 6 to 8 is less stable; and 8 to 10, development is optimal.

Finally the analyses try to associate the state of development with other aspects that may affect it, such as the presence of transnational corporations in the chain, coffee cultivated area. A regression analysis is developed in order to understand if the kind of influence of coffee production in the sustainable development of this region; however, one should not forget that this is an approximation and that the limiting obtain adequate information to measure the quality of life and sustainability considerable influence.

Finally, it is concluded that relevant aspects governance in the chain influence on sustainable development, throughout practices employed by leading companies who manage the chain. Based on (Diaz Porras & Valenciano Salazar, 2012, pp. 16-17) the type of existing micro level governance are identified in each link of the chain according to the type of integration of the supply chain.
References

Díaz Porras R., & Valenciano Salazar J.A., (2012). Gobernanza en las Cadenas Globales de Mercancías/ Valor: Una revisión conceptual. Economía y Sociedad.

Gereffi G., & Korzeniewicz M. (1994) *Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism* Westport, Connecticut *London*. Praeger Publishers.

Gómez de Segura R.B. (sf). Sustainable development according to Brundtland as Biomimicry Sustainability. University of the Basque Country and the Institute of Studies on International Cooperation.

Sepulveda, S. (2008). *Methodology for estimating the level of sustainable development of territories*. San Jose, Costa Rica: IICA.
Session 5

Strengthening the capacities needed to make
multi-stakeholder partnerships for innovation
in agri-chains work in practice
# Scaling inclusive development:
assessing the outreach and leverage of agri-chain
partnerships in sub-Saharan Africa

Sietze Vellema<fnref n="1" /> and Greetje Schouten

## Rationale of the development pathway

Smallholder farmers, often belonging to the most marginalized groups in society, manage over 400 million small farms and provide over 80 per cent of the food consumed in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (IFAD, 2013). These regions face high levels of food insecurity, with almost over 800 million people undernourished – 239 million in Sub-Saharan Africa and 578 million in Asia (FAO, 2011). Policy and interventions addressing food insecurity and undernourishment focus on the right combination of technical and institutional changes, which potential increase agricultural production and food access via market expansion. Partnerships involving companies, organised farmers and public agencies have become influential organisational actors for implementing intervention strategies that endeavour to increase smallholders’ access to technology, inputs and markets with the aim to alleviate poverty and increase food security at the same time (Verena Bitzer & Glasbergen, 2015; V. Bitzer, Wijk, Helmsing, & Linden, 2011; Ros-Tonen, Van Leynseele, Laven, & Sunderland, 2015).

To generate this type of technical and institutional change processes, many present-day development policies and projects emphasize the need for inclusive development, often through so-called “value chain collaboration ‘beyond the chain’” (Gupta, Pouw, & Ros-Tonen, 2015; Ros-Tonen et al., 2015). These types of agri-chain partnerships are understood as collaboration between different value chain actors, often combined with other societal actors, including NGOs and governmental actors, in order to reach developmental outcomes (Helmsing & Vellema, 2011a, 2011b; Ros-Tonen et al., 2015). Large amounts of public money are invested in interventions aiming at the inclusion of small holder producers into agri-chains and/or agribusiness operations.

The paper is based on action research of the Partnerships Resource Centre with the 2SCALE programme, implemented by the coalition of IFDC, ICRA and BoP Inc. The 2SCALE programme brings the right partners together for collective, coordinated action in value chains and / or agri-business clusters. The 2SCALE programme is based on the assumption that greater market participation by small-scale local entrepreneurs will boost food security and agriculture-based trade in Africa. The programme expects that market expansion will give farmers the incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies and partnerships will be able to address the challenges faced by local firms or agribusiness clusters entering the market place, such as lack of scale economies, high transaction costs, limited knowledge of markets. The programme’s focus on food security and improved nutrition, and the inclusion of vulnerable smallholder producers is the orientation of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The programme’s ambitions are also expressed in terms of scale to be realised by its technical and institutional innovation. Development-oriented interventions are increasingly scrutinised for their scalability potential. Donors ask the intervening organisations to express their impact in terms of verifiable numbers of beneficiaries reached. In the domain of inclusive development and agri-food chains, this implies demonstrating scale in terms of numbers of farmers reached by the intervention. Scale can also be realised via an emerging network of replicated practices and interventions, which all have a specific outreach and geographical coverage.

The objective of the paper is to offer development practitioners and policy makers an analytical perspective for assessing the process of scaling. The risk of focusing on numbers only is that scaling is not

<footnote n="1">1. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.</footnote>
approached as an unfolding process that can, to some extent, be steered or influenced. It seems relevant to think about how the scalability of induced processes of inclusive development at an early stage of the intervention. The concrete innovations and partnerships initiated by the 2SCALE programme imply a transformation process of agri-chains towards inclusive and sustainable development. What enables practitioners and partnerships facilitators to assess whether this transformation process is scalable?

## Conceptual framework

This paper is motivated by the observation that whether an innovation is adopted on a wide scale importantly depends on complicated interactions between the nature of the innovation itself and the context wherein it lands. The approach developed in the paper is anchored in the work of realist evaluation, which looks for the processes triggered by a program or innovation, but recognises that the outcomes, for this paper scalable inclusive development, can only be explained by including context in the assessment. The interaction between the properties of the technical / institutional innovation and context is where explanation for scaling can be traced, but this can also be the core focus of strategic guidance of an innovation process. This invites practitioners and policy makers to look beyond the technical and organisational boundaries of the new practice, and to recognize how scaling and leveraging thereof depends on the ways interdependencies and embedding are managed. This implies that scaling of an innovation can take place in one context and not in the other. A ‘one size fits all’ approach to steering processes of scaling is often insufficient. It is necessary to assess when, where and why some innovations lapse into inactivity while others go to scale and even indicate system change.

The paper develops and applies a framework for assessing the outreach and leverage of partnering and inclusive development in the context of agri-chains in West and East Africa. The framework adopts business-oriented perspectives that are anchored in the scholarly traditions in public administration, organisation and management studies and system thinking.

Firstly, the paper uses the work of Dubbink (Dubbink, 2013) to assess the place for partnering in the context of contested relations between market, state and civil society in historically and regionally specific business systems (Whitley, Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). This specifies the institutional environments wherein the innovation and partnering process evolve and become embedded. Societal triangulation is proposed as the first indicator for assessing the contextual embedding of a scalable process of inclusive development.

Secondly, the paper uses the work of Seelos and Mair (Seelos & Mair, 2010a, 2010b) to trace whether organisational closure occurs in the evolving process of inclusive development. Organisational closure refers to a process wherein the room to make choices or modifications is narrowed. The nature and orientation of the intervention become less malleable. This can be due to operational reasons, e.g. how the aggregation of products is arranged or due to organisational reasons, e.g. how processes functional to marketing or certification silence emerging tensions within partnerships.

Thirdly, the paper makes scaling dependent on the type of leverage point managed in the socio-technical innovation, for which the hierarchy composed by Meadows (Donella Meadows, 1999; DH Meadows, 2008) is useful for specifying the scope of systemic change that the socio-technical intervention may induce. The paper develops a specific interest in identifying leverage points that entail novel feedback mechanisms and / or novel rules and practices. Whether these proto-institutions diffuse into the specific contexts (Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips, 2002) is considered to be an indicator

## Main results

The paper applies the framework for assessing the scalability of inclusive development in agrichain to 32 partnerships in West and East Africa initiated by the 2SCALE programme. For these case studies of inclusive development (Vellema, Ton, de Roo, & van Wijk, 2013) the paper evaluates how and whether the conceptual framework enables development interventionists to assess the scalability of inclusive development already in early phases of development programmes.
## References

Bitzer, V., & Glasbergen, P. (2015). Business-NGO partnerships in global value chains: part of the solution or part of the problem of sustainable change? *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12*, 35-40.

Bitzer, V., Wijk, J. v., Helmsing, B., & Linden, V. v. d. (2011). Partnering to facilitate smallholder inclusion in value chains. In B. Helmsing & Vellema (Eds.), *Value Chains, Inclusion and Endogenous Development. Contrasting Theories and Realities*. Milton Park, Abingdon, UK:Routledge.

Dubbink, W. (2013). *Assisting the invisible hand: Contested relations between market, state and civil society* (Vol. 18): Springer Science & Business Media.

Gupta, J., Pouw, N. R., & Ros-Tonen, M. A. (2015). Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive development. *European Journal of Development Research, 27* (4), 541-559.

Helmsing, A. H. J., & Vellema, S. (2011a). Value Chains and Development: A knowledge agenda (pp. 63). Amsterdam: DPRN.

Helmsing, A. H. J., & Vellema, S. (2011b). *Value Chains, Social Inclusion and Economic Development: Contrasting Theories and Realities*. London and New York: Routledge.

Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. *Academy of Management Journal, 45* (1), 281-290.

Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system *The Sustainability Institute*. Hartland. Accessed: http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems. Chapter Six: Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System: Chelsea Green Publishing Company: White River Junction, VT,USA.

Ros-Tonen, M. A., Van Leynseele, Y.-P. B., Laven, A., & Sunderland, T. (2015). Landscapes of social inclusion: Inclusive value-chain collaboration through the lenses of food sovereignty and landscape governance. *The European Journal of Development Research, 27* (4), 523-540.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2010a). *Organizational mechanisms of inclusive growth: A critical realist perspective on scaling*. Paper presented at the AOM Conference. Montreal.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2010b). Organizational Mechanisms of Scaling Social Enterprises. Stanford Working Paper Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, Stanford University

Vellema, S., Ton, G., de Roo, N., & van Wijk, J. (2013). Value chains, partnerships and development: Using case studies to refine programme theories. *Evaluation, 19* (3), 304-320.
# Innovation platforms and value chain: technological interactions and sustainability in Ivoirian plantain sector

Euphrasie C.M. Angbo-Kouakou<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Frédéric Lançon<fnref n="3" /> and Ludovic Temple<fnref n="1" />

## Introduction

Public policies to improve agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa have rehabilitated in recent decades the need to create socio-technological networks (Doray and Lapointe, 1992) in order to support development projects designed to obtain food sovereignty challenges (Brunel, 2009; Charlier, 2017). Socio-technical networks in developing countries can also underpin organizational components that will constitute even the existence of a sector (Hugon, 1985) as a system. These networks would then be characterized by a grouping of several actors, categories of actors and institutions of an agricultural and / or food chain. In our work, these networks are polarized by innovation.

In Côte d'Ivoire, so-called strategic crops (plantain, maize, cassava, yam and rice) have been identified in studies on the development of a National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA) for their significant impact on poverty reduction and economic development (PNIA, 2010). The process has been carried out and is still being carried out by the Program WAAPP CI, with a view to improving the productivity of these food crops. The diffusion of this improved plant material is supported by the creation of the Innovation Platforms in the main geographical areas of production of these food crops.

The classical and diffusionist model of technological and varietal innovation in this PED is based on the presence of technical rural development agencies (ANADER<fnref n="4" />, INADES Formation) which disseminate (sale or free distribution) to producers, agricultural inputs developed by companies or research. The setting up of innovation platforms appears as an attempt to diversify this model to introduce the role of the market as an innovation steering institution (traders, distributors, consumers).

These new supports are therefore a means of renewing mechanisms for the transfer of knowledge and technologies through learning and capacity building through collective coordination of actors around an innovation process. These diffusion models differ from the old linear diffusion methods (pools technology) carried out by national agricultural extension and advisory agencies or by NGOs which provide various forms of technical and / or financial support, or by agri-food companies which draw up sales contracts with suppliers.

We examine in our study how these innovation platforms implemented in Côte d'Ivoire since 2013 play a role or not in the existence of a systemic dynamics focused on the innovations mobilized in the specific case of technological transfers. We propose in this work to evaluate how the designing of this experimental device in a diffusionist logic based on technologies, make the actors of the sector interact and finally reconfigure the system, therefore in itself, generate new organizational innovation.

This study uses the conceptual and theoretical framework of the economics of value chain (Temple et al., 2011) to analyse an innovation process. It aims to provide an answer to the question of how the conception of technological innovations in a methodological approach in terms of “Value Chain” is more innovative in terms of efficiency of this network of selected transfers, contrary to that based solely on the sector of the production of a chain, privileged during decades in the PED.

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR Innovation, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Institut National Polytechnique Félix Houphouët-Boigny (INP-HB), Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. CIRAD, UMR ART-DEV, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. Agence Nationale d'Appui au Développement Rural (ANADER), Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.</footnote>
This article is organized into three sections. In the first, we describe the conceptual framework of the economics of the chain and methodological framework of the analysis which guided the data collection. Results are analyzed in the second section. In final section, we discuss the appropriateness of using a new approach that we call “Innovative Chain System, SFI”. Recommendations and research perspectives will help to conclude the study.

# Methods and Data

## *Theoretical and conceptual framework*

In a theoretical frame of reference for the dominant development economy, which bases African agricultural development on the transfer of technologies developed in industrial agriculture (Badouin, 1975, Assidon, 2002), this study uses the conceptual approach of analysis in terms of “Chain System” and the methodological referential of “Meso-Analysis Chain, MSF” (Hugon, 1994). However, we propose to update the use of benchmarks for the analysis of chains in view of the recent development of “value chain” approaches (Temple et al., 2011, Palpacuer, 2015) and “Innovation System” (Touzard et al., 2015) to describe these new institutional arrangements.

## *Methodological and analytical framework*

The collection of primary data was carried out in April 2016 during a fact-finding mission to the leaders and members of the five PIPs. Semi-directional interviews were also conducted between June 2015 and August 2016, with the Ministry in charge of agriculture and food safety, technical and agricultural advisory structures, research centers, executing agency Firca_Waapp.

On the empirical level, this objective will be tested on three improved varieties of plantain introduced successively in 2012 (Pita 3, Fhia 21) by the National Center for Agronomic Research (CNRA) and then in 2014 (Big Ebanga) by the Interprofessional Fund for Research and Agricultural Council (FIRCA), the agency in charge of implementing this productivity improvement WAAPP program.

# Results

## *Impact of the PIP on the reconfiguration of relations between actors in chain*

Five PIPs were set up in Côte d'Ivoire since 2013 to accelerate the diffusion of technological innovations: (i) PIP of YEBOYEKON in Abengourou, (ii) those of N'DÈ N'FENIN-TÔH of Agboville, (iii) WOYÈ of Adzopé, (iv) PIP of Issia and (v) PIP of NAWA in Soubré. The number of direct actors in this chain involved varies by implementation area and by groups of actors (Table 1).

Three relationships between the actors of the sector were most significant: relations between research and development institutions and management structures, those between management structures and producer groups, and then between professionals in the field and research. The PIP promoted the introduction of the Big Ebanga hybrid in 2014, the dissemination of three improved varieties of plantain and the transfer of technologies for plantain cultivation.

## *Return on the relevance of using an SFI approach to structure innovation*

Taking the methodological framework of an SFI approach to structure an innovation process is based on a fundamental assumption that the complementarity between the different segments of the sector. In this study, two interdependent elements must be highlighted for the applicability of this hypothesis, namely: make good use of the concept of the sector in the concept of platforms to test innovation; and institutionalizing the sector to better manage the implementation of innovation.

## *From the incompleteness of the use of the concept of the value chain in the concept of platforms to experiment innovation*

Initially, PIP produced remarkable results on the governance of the innovation process. Indeed, we have witnessed the performance of the PIP to drive the first level of innovation which is the experimentation
of the new varieties. These PIP then fostered the integration of the opinion of the target populations
for a reorientation of the choices of the public policies in terms of selection of the varieties introduced
taking into account the needs of plant material of the producers and the preferences of the consumers.
In a second step, a gap in the use of the chain approach by innovation platforms is however to be noted
since we recall that these are mainly industrial varieties witch destined much more for industrial use
(flour, pastry, chips)..

To the lack of formal institutionalization to drive the implementation of innovation

For the chain to emerge as a guiding element of technological innovation it must be formally institution-
alized with rules, standards and organizational forms, in which all players in the agri-chain recognize
themselves, since they have contributed to their progressive development. However, for the moment it
did not show any institutionalization of this Ivorian plantain value chain.

In order to achieve this, it would be necessary to establish networks of actors or colleges much more
homogeneous and transversal to the 5 PIPs composed mainly of actors from each level / segment of the
chain (production, marketing and processing).

Conclusion

This study examines how platforms have seized the value chain referential and mobilized it in the
specific case of technological innovations in the food sector in Côte d'Ivoire. It therefore relies on the
conceptual and methodological framework of the economics of the sectors to analyse an innovation
process. It proposes to contribute to the definition of a new conceptual concept in terms of "Innovative
Chain System, SFI" combining methodological approaches in terms of "Meso-Analysis Sector" and
"Sectorial System of Innovation".

Our results show that these PIPs are as successful as failures. Their success lies in resolving the stakes involved in coordinating actors in a sector around the experimental test for the introduction of plantain varieties. However, their failures are explained by the failure to respect the central hypothesis of the chain approach, which is to integrate all the actors. The designing and establishment of colleges of actors more homogeneous in the three segments of the plantain value chain will contribute to this institutionalization, which would take the form of a college and then become progressively regional.

Is the concept of “agri-chain” really adapted to integrate the different actors of socio-technological inno-
vation in a co-construction process? Is it finally the right tool in the case of a secondary crop and mostly
associated with perennial crops (cocoa, hevea) destined for export ?

The SFI itself is contextual to the creation of innovation platforms that establish a coordination struc-
ture. However, the question remains as to whether these platforms are diluted in relation to the external
financing that supports them, whether these SFIs will continue to exist.

Bibliographie

Hugon P. (1994). Filières agricoles et politique macro-économique dans économie des politiques agri-
coles dans les pays en développement, Tome 2 : Les aspects macroéconomiques / coordonné par P.
Guillaumont, Revue Française d'Économie, Paris.

Klerkx L., van Mierlo B., Leeuwis C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innova-
tion: concepts, analysis and interventions, in Darnhofer I., Gibbon D., and B. Dedieu (eds.), Farming
Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, Springer Science, Dordrecht

Malerba F. 2005. "Sectorial Systems of Innovation: a framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors". Economics of Innovation and News Technology. 14(1-2), 63-82.

Osseni B. (1998). Les systèmes de cultures comportant le bananier plantain en Côte d'Ivoire. In Banana Food Security Proceeding of INIBAP. International symposium. Douala (Cameroun). 10-14 November 2018. p 689-693.
Perrin A. (2015). Étude de la filière Banane Plantain en Côte d'Ivoire. Projet «Promotion et commercialisation de la Banane Plantain et du Manioc en Côte d'Ivoire» financé par le Comité Français pour la Solidarité Internationale (CFSI). ONG RONGEAD (International Trade & Sustainable Development). 66 p.

PNIA. (2010). « PNIA (programme National d'Investissement Agricole). » Ministère de l'Agriculture de Côte d'ivoire (Minagri). 2010. Document de plaidoyer, agriculture.gouv.ci. 118p.

Temple, L., F. Lançon, F. Palpacuer, G. Paché and others. (2011). Actualisation du concept de filière dans l'Agriculture et l'agroalimentaire. Économies et Sociétés, Série « Systèmes agroalimentaires » AG n°33. 1785-1797.

Touzard, J.M., Temple, L., Faure, G. & Triomphe, B. (2015). Systèmes d'innovation et communautés de connaissances dans le secteur agricole et agroalimentaire », Innovations, n° 43, p. 13-38.
# How to support innovation processes in agricultural sector? Diversity and complexity of situations of innovation in Burkina-Faso.

Aurélie Toillier<fnref n="1" />, Salif Derra and Eveline M. F. W. Compaore Sawadogo<fnref n="2" />

## Rationale

Facilitate innovation processes is considered as one of the solution for improving value chains performances and accelerating agricultural development while meeting the challenges of population growth, climate change and environmental degradation.

The question of how to enable agricultural innovation has been largely discussed and researched leading to numerous recommendations but still without intended impacts. The prevailing view is about ensuring that conditions that nurture eclectic approaches to innovation exist, and that competitors join forces with each other to constantly adapt institutional and policy framework conditions for innovation (Hall et al., 2007). Seeing innovation as the result of complex and multidimensional interactions as the dominant thinking (Klerks et al., 2012) led to the implementation of innovation platforms and networks as a silver bullet (Kilelu et al., 2013).

However there is a real lack of knowledge about tools, methods, incentives or skills which are suitable to organize exchanges and work within a diversity of innovation networks in order to make them efficient with evident improved capacities to innovate. The research of abstraction and generalization impoverished knowledge on innovation support mechanisms themselves.

Hermans and al. (2013) showed that helping the agency of specific individual or organizational skills within an innovation network in order to fulfill basic functions (knowledge co-creation, outscaling, up-scaling) is a key to successfully support agricultural innovation process. It raises new questions about the possibility to strategically manage multistakeholders’ innovation processes. How to build a common vision and flexible institutional arrangements? How to ensure that all functions are performed? What is the role for monitoring and learning approaches? Regarding agricultural innovation drivers, can we manage any type of innovation process?

In order to address those issues, we proposed to identify and explore a diversity of situations of innovation in order to emphasize management practices which have a positive impact on innovation processes. The objective is to help set a framework for the characterization of different successful innovation support models.

## Conceptual Framework

Our approach crossed two fields of literature, usually unconnected: organizations and management. First organizational studies mainly highlight the challenges for organizations to manage both exploration and exploitation processes in order to perform innovation (Argyris and Schön, 2002). Several managerial levers have been identified as key determinants (Crossan et al., 2010): learning and knowledge management, organizational culture, structure and system features, resource allocation and explicit innovation strategy.

Second in the area of management studies, there are few empirical studies addressing the role of organizational design or inter-organizational cooperation (Brion et al., 2008).

In order to bridge this gap, we built a framework which seeks to link managerial action with innovation as a process and outcome of organizational level, using network, learning and knowledge theories. We

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR Innovation, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. INERA, CNRST, Ouagadougou 09, Burkina Faso.</footnote>
defined a situation of innovation similar to a management situation (Berry 1983; Girin, 2016), in order to empirically address ongoing innovation processes. A situation of innovation is a set of activities in interaction, associated with the idea of collective action and results which are submitted to a judgment. Individuals are considered engaged in a situation of innovation when they recognize that they participate, at various degrees, to the production of those results.

We made two assumptions: i) there are management practices that help agents of a situation of innovation to fulll expected functions (knowledge co-creation, out-scaling, up-scaling); ii) there are organizational factors which facilitate the implementation of those practices.

We combined two levels of analyse: i) the situation of innovation, which is composed of multiple organizations all connected via their contribution to innovation process; ii) the activity level of individuals. We consider indeed that innovative capacity of organization lies primarily at the individual level and is strongly related to praxis and practice of individuals.

From a literature review, we identified a set of prevalent explicative variables and items at each level (tab. 1 & 2). Then we operated in two steps. Firstly, an exploratory approach aimed at testing and validating these variables: how far the model described the diversity and complexity of different situations of innovation. Second, we evaluated the predictive use of our structural model: how the variables will behave if one of more of them are changed.

In this paper, we present the results of the first step of our research.

## Methods and data collection

We developed our approach in Burkina-Faso. Based on a scoping study of the challenges at the level of national agricultural innovation system and based on participatory workshops with innovation stakeholders, we identified intensive innovation areas where development challenges are considered as priority. We then identified a diversity of innovation processes regarding three criteria: nature of innovation-product (technical, organizational, service, social), stage of innovation-process (initiation or implementation) and the main perceived obstacles to the success of innovation. Based on those criteria, six situations of innovation considered as representative of the diversity of innovation processes have been selected (tab 3). In order to collect data, we combined focus groups at the organizational level, workshop at the level of the situation of innovation and individual interviews (tab.4).

## Results

The application of our method on three situations of innovation helped to fine-tune our explanatory variables and items. We added more synthetic variables at the individual level, addressing motivation and interessement issues, which have been identified as key drivers of the level of contribution to a situation of innovation. Results at the level of situation of innovation showed the diversity and complexity of the relationships between organizational factors and actual activities that constitute the fabric of innovation.

## Discussion and conclusion

Considering the starting research project, results are mainly conceptual and methodological. Our results helped to deepen the understanding of a situation of innovation which is an invisible locus where innovation is managed in some kind of explicit manner depending on the profiles of individuals involved. However preliminary results let us think that existing management tools and procedure at both the inter-organizational level and organizational level did exist and helped to overcome the weaknesses of individual or organizational capacities for innovation.

Our approach is complementary to other approaches developed in the framework of AIS thinking which are very descriptive and fall short of helping the identification of concrete actions for facilitating innovation.
Considering the nature of management processes at the level of situation of innovation, we recommend to implement sort of support committees that will act as a management and investigation body in order to strengthen overarching innovation capacity of stakeholders, in a continuous and targeted manner (Lenfle S. 2004). One-size-fit-all and one-shot capacity development interventions are not suitable to support innovation. Further analysis of our results will help to identify composition, roles and tools for these committees.

## Bibliography

Argyris C. et Schön D.A., 2002. *Apprentissage organisationnel, théorie, méthode, pratique*, traduction de la 1ère édition américaine, Paris, Bruxelles, De Boeck université.

Berry M., 1983. Une technologie invisible ? L'impact des instruments de gestion sur l'évolution des systèmes humains. École Polytechnique, CRG.

Brion S., Mothe C., Sabatier M., 2008. L'impact-clé des modes de management pour l'innovation. *Revue française de gestion* 2008/7 (n°187), p.177-194.

Crossan M.M. and Marina Apaydin, 2010. A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. *Journal of Management Studies* 47:6 September 2010

Girin J., 2016. Langage, organisations, situations et agencements. Presses de l'Université Laval, 442p.

Hall A., 2007. Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems: Where Do We Go From Here? working paper, n°38 United Nations University, 28p.

Hermans F., Marian Stuiverc, P.J. Beers, Kasper Kok, 2013. The distribution of roles and functions or upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems Volume 115, February 2013, Pages 117-128.

Kilelu C., Klerks L., Leeuwis C., 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural Systems 118 (2013) 65-77.

Klerkx L., van Mierlo B., Leeuwis C., 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions, in Darnhofer I., Gibbon D., and B. Dedieu (eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, Springer Science, Dordrecht.

Lenfle S., 2004. Peut-on gérer l'innovation par projet ? . Faire de la recherche en management de projet, Vuibert Fnege, pp.11-34.
## Tables and figures

<table><caption>Tableau 1. Evaluation of the capacity of an organization to contribute to a situation of innovation</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables to be explained</th><th>Explanatory variables</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nature of actions</td><td><ul><li>Nature of engagement with partners</li><li>Level of acceptance of risk and uncertainty</li><li>Area of responsibility and expertise</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Intensity of actions</td><td><ul><li>Level of motivation and interessement of individuals</li><li>Gap between own objectives and expected results</li><li>Innovation process duration</li><li>Level of understanding of challenges to achieve innovation process</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency of actions</td><td><ul><li>Available resources</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Tableau 2. Structural model to analyse the drivers of a successful situation of innovation</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables to be explained</th><th>Items</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Knowledge co-production function achieved</td><td><ul><li>Main areas of new knowledge</li><li>Knowledge producers</li><li>Partnerships dealing with knowledge co-production</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Outscaling function achieved</td><td><ul><li>Level of understanding and ownership of innovation process by all actors involved</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Upscaling function achieved</td><td><ul><li>Degree and modalities of implication of politics</li></ul></td></tr><tr><th>Explanatory variables</th><th>Items</th></tr><tr><td>Degree of inter-dependence between organizations</td><td><ul><li>Nb of formal or informal agreements</li><li>Duration and flexibility of agreements</li><li>Nature of mutual constraints</li><li>Intensity of inter-personal relationships between organizations</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Organizational factors</td><td><ul><li>Redundancy of each supports innovation function</li><li>Degree of representativeness of NAIS stakeholders</li><li>Innovation capacities of each organization</li><li>Common knowledge and understanding of achieved results and objectives</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Existing management practices</td><td><ul><li>Existing mechanism of affirmation innovation identity</li><li>Existing tools or procedures enabling the re-orientation of activities and objectives</li><li>Existing mechanism for monitoring and learning</li><li>Existing mechanism for evaluate/select individuals or organizations engaged in the situation of innovation</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3. Selected situations of innovation in Burkina-Faso</caption><thead><tr><th>Stage of innovation</th><th>Selected Situations of innovation</th><th>Main challenges</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Initiation (data collecting and development of suitable resources for implementation)</td><td>Micro-irrigation systems for small family farms</td><td>Technological lock-in, marketing issues</td></tr><tr><td>Development of sunflower production</td><td>Technological lock-in, value chain issues</td></tr><tr><td>SPG label for organic farming</td><td>Institutional and political lobbying, value chain issues.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Implementation (use, modification and adaptation of an innovation)</td><td>Farm advisory services provided by farmer's organizations to their members</td><td>Scaling-out</td></tr><tr><td>Small innovative family businesses in food processing</td><td>Increase impacts</td></tr><tr><td>Local land charters for municipalities</td><td>Appropriation by end-users</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4. Methods for data collection</caption><thead><tr><th>Levels</th><th>Objectives</th><th>Methods</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Individual</td><td><ul><li>Motivations and skills</li><li>Practice and praxis in relation to the management of innovation</li></ul></td><td>Semi-structured interviews</td></tr><tr><td>Organization</td><td><ul><li>Identification of individuals who are engaged in the site situation of innovation</li><li>Nature and timeline of actions and results that contribute to innovation process</li><li>Level of knowledge and understanding of innovation process</li><li>Nature and modalities of partnerships with other organizations of the situation of innovation</li><li>Identification of innovation management mechanisms at the inter-organizational level</li></ul></td><td>Focus groups</td></tr><tr><td>Situation of innovation</td><td><ul><li>Engagement in the research and development project</li><li>Characterization of the situation of innovation: composition, challenges, obstacles</li></ul></td><td>Participatory Workshops</td></tr></tbody></table>
# The case of Myanmar: after 50 years of dictatorship, making the leapfrogging possible in agriculture

Ei Khin Khin<fnref n="1" />

## Myanmar situation after 50 years of dictatorship

Myanmar (Burma) is getting rid of several decades of isolation. Due to international sanctions and an inadequate development model, characterized by political as well as economical constraints, the country is lacking of infrastructures while the people is lacking of competencies. Since 2011 and the opening of the country, investments are progressively coming, and so the threats to its rich diversity. The risk is important to see the country being developed without any environmental or social concerns.

While the last election (8 November 2015) has given majority to the opposition (NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi's party) and made the country a living democracy in being, the political debate seems to focus more and more on which most relevant development model to be adopted. If some are pushing towards a business-as-usual model (exclusive, export-oriented, short-term profit, and resources-spoiling), many from civil society as well as business people) are arguing in favour of a model that is harmonious and respectful to the environment of the country and its people.

As in any other country, Myanmar's development will pass by development and mutations inside its agricultural sector. But we must fight for a model that: prevents massive rural exodus, alleviates poverty, prevents major threats to the environment, prioritize quality and national needs first.

Agricultural sector is a powerful tool to alleviate poverty and also mitigate climate change (Myanmar is supposed to be the 2nd most endangered country in the world on that matter). But only if we develop a sustainable agriculture.

Myanmar's agricultural sector represents more than 35% of the GDP. However, it concerns more than 70% of the population and occupies more than 20% of the available lands. So the sector remains unproductive, many reasons: international isolation, lack of infrastructures, totally wrong (or absence of) policies, plundering of resources and people, abuses of all kinds, massive land grabbing by army or cronies militias, weak ownership, nearly no agricultural research. Poverty (26% of the people working in the agricultural sector), child malnutrition (32% of Myanmar's children), no mechanisation, no access to loans are also some of the major characteristics of the sector.

Agricultural sector has to be a priority in the country's development. But with which model?. Fortunately, wrong experiences around the world can help us, against the intensive agriculture model.

But the country already has bad records: the former government, and its Minister of Agriculture (that was the first burmese shareholder of the biggest pesticide chinese company!!), and the agro-business lobby with local and foreing lobbies, have all praised for the usual model: fully-mechanized, fully-pesticides, large scale farming, farmers expropriation, export-oriented, with monocultures (rice, mainly) and very low quality. And then huge rural migration has already started.

Dramas has already started for years now: huge misuse of pesticides, leading to diseases and deaths by thousands, massive deforestation, land conflicts for 20% of farmers...

On farmers:

- the income of farmers is still the lowest in South East Asia, around 200 USD per capita ((OECD).

- in accordance with land ownership law, farmers cannot own formally the land, and all the property is owned by the State of Myanmar, so every one is borrowing the land, which makes landgrabbing so

<footnote n="1">1. Green Lotus NGO, 11041 Yangon, Myanmar.</footnote>
much easier. Nevertheless, the stakeholders are trying to enact a national land use law but it is still in a draft stage. Also, this policy must set out an efficient process for the investigation and return of confiscated land. These provisions are critical to protect the livelihoods and rights of small-hold farmers and to promote inclusive and sustainable development for the entire country. Over 90% of the farmers are running less than 2 hectares.

On climate change :

In Myanmar, as in countries like Bangladesh or India, farmers are strongly affected by climate change, floods and drought, which are very difficult to control. Most of the farmers and farm workers can be sometimes moving to countries like Thailand, Malaysia... for the hope of better earning, or to avoid losing dignity. Therefore, it is difficult to cut the poverty vicious cycle.

**Myanmar has huge potential for a sustainable agriculture:**

Of course, as Myanmar has different geographical landscape and weather/temperature system, there is a huge variety of products can be produced, and also thanks a one of the highest biodiversities in the world. different kinds of plants, herbs, trees species can be grown, as well as various kinds of seasonal crops. As rice is staple food, rice is the major crop in monsoon. Myanmar used to be a rice bowl of South East Asia in the 50s. Paw San Hmwe, Myanmar famous variety, used to be known as the best rice in the world. Other crops like sugar, maize, coffee, tea leaves, spices like pepper and turmeric, fruits like mango, tamarind and pomelo, medicinal plants like *tinospora* and *Ecliptaalba... many were big in numbers and can be back again*.

But the big potential comes also from the people and the political brand new situation.

First, the new government of Myanmar promises to listen what people want and need, and, surprisingly, it can happen!

The current government looks committed to bring revolution in africulture (from the past policies) for the good of farmers. But they lack a clear strategy and knowledge, for now.

The claims of farmers are for inputs like seeds, fertilizers, agricultural machineries, skills and trainings, and the most import thing is money, difficult to access by small scales farmers.

Myanmar is a people of activists and resistants, and has an everyday bigger civil society, especially with the new democracy.

So many organizations appeared : Peasants Unions, Organic associations, Rural NGOs, Communi-
ty-based organizations...

Foreign NGOs like GRET, GIZ, Green Lotus, WeltHunger Hilfe, Swiss Aid... and some local organi-
zations supported by LIFT (a donors' program) are trying to promote organic agriculture in some areas
like Shan State or Central Myanmar.

This tendency is also touching the international donors: with the assistance of ADB and FAO, the new Ministry of agriculture (which includes also Departments like Livestock, Fisheries, Irrigation, Rural Development) is right now leading pilot projects for “sustainable climate smart agriculture practices” in the four townships of the new capital, Nay Pyi Taw, in Central Myanmar.

...and for Organic farming & other high-value strategy:

Organic market in Myanmar is very new and quite small compare to other countries like Thailand. As middle class and upper middle class people are growing, demand for organic is booming, but a very small niche.

Here are the situation and constraints :

First, labellization for organic products: for the moment, there are three civil society organizations, well recognized, who are providing organic certificate, two for locally eligible and one for internation-
ally eligible through “Control Union” label group. Two local organizations are weak and not working together, and their certification is not strong enough to guarantee for international export, even if the standards are very good in seriousness and quality. Control Union is quite strong but expensive for local and small producers, even for export. All of this need to be acknowledged and organised by a competent and active government. But the Department of Agriculture still could not brought up strong, reliable system for farmers.

Anyway, we need to explain that – as Myanmar has mostly small scales farmers – organic farming is the most suitable way to develop a sustainable and profitable agriculture for all:

* For the development of organic market, to train the farmers to change their practices into climate smart agricultural system is the must. Distribution of skills should be through farmers' field schools which are almost non existing in Myanmar at the moment. Through these schools, farmers can be taught farming skills, post harvesting practices and promotion of value chain and value-added products and farm related products.

* Second thing is to promote PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) in Myanmar who has a number of quality and well locally-identified products, with some famous through ages, but sometimes nearly forgotten. It is, combined to organic and fair trade labels, to change the image of the country's agriculture in the eyes of consumers, citizens, farmers as well as politicians and business leaders. It is also simply to promote the value of the export products as well as the income of small-scale farmers. In Myanmar, local equivalent PGI are already existing like Tea from Pindaya (Shan State), Paw San Hmwe Rice from Shwe Bo (middle of Myanmar), famous Myanmar Thanakha from Pakkokku (from dry zone), etc. PGI process is needed for each product to become well known and internationally recognized.

By promoting organic PGI, income for the farmers and farm workers can be brought up. Of course, transportation and logistics have to improve.

* Production of quality seeds for local products is key to bring to the attention of the current government. Reaching quality seed is one of the major difficulties, because the current seed law is a burden for local and small scale seed producers.

* Through organic farming, benefits for community forests can be created by united CBOs and villages so that they can face together against disasters like drought and scarcity of water.

* Our very last project : partnership & innovation

We are recently imagining and starting a “Pilot project for organic market” in Yangon, inside a famous Heritage compound made of former colonial classified buildings, called “The Organic Place”, and composed of many activities : training school, offices for organizations and unions, research center, vegetable gardens, restaurant, shops...

All this with organic farmers groups, organic experts, small business entrepreneurs, CSOs leaders...and backed by / City of Yangon, Region of Yangon, Department of agriculture, hotels and restaurants in town.

We want this project to be really grassroots, and bring a real empowerment for our sustainable agriculture national Movement, with development of market strategy, development of quality products, promotion in international market, consumers knowledge-sharing.

It will be on all fields: food, health, cosmetics, handicraft, textile, furnitures
# Transition in agricultural innovation and development: a case study of Bt cotton system in Burkina Faso

Eveline M. F. W. Compaore Sawadogo<fnref n="1" />

Since the end of the 2000s, science and technology appear in academic literature and policy documents as if they have some intrinsic attributes which are capable of improving the wellbeing of populations of developing countries, regardless of the socio-technical systems of their production and use. The exploration of this view was used to draw the attention of researchers and policy-makers to the importance of conducting debates about building scientific and technological capacities in developing countries at the same time as discussion about the relationships between scientific and technological progress, and poverty. Specifically, taking biotechnology cotton production in Burkina Faso as an example of an application of a science – and technology – based intervention in one of the poorest countries in the world.

Drawing on a broader definition of technology, this paper used the Actor Network Theory (ANT) analytical concept to chart the Bt cotton innovation system. Indeed, as constructivist approach, it assumes that events or innovations are better understood in action instead of attributing them abstract attributes (Callon, 1986; Law, 1992; 2009; Latour, 1996; Cressman, 2009). It is a unique approach which sheds light on complexities by connecting people, artefacts, institutions and organizations. More explicitly, the heart of this theory is the assumption that reality or form of things depends on their involvement in interweaving relationships. The actor-network is the central concept in ANT. However, ANT is thoroughly processual, meaning that there is no guarantee that an actors of the network will remain the same throughout the process of the network building and its operation. Clearly, ANT “consists of four moments which can in reality overlap. These moments constitute the different phases of a general process called translation, during which the identity of actors, the possibility of interaction, and the margins of manoeuvre are negotiated and delimited” (Callon and Blackwell, 2007: 59). ANT theorists also assume that networks of relations may contain conflicts. Indeed, these processes could be seen in the case of Bt cotton technology in Burkina Faso and the extent to which, Monsanto the researchers, cotton farmers, policy makers, activists, Bt cotton have all entered into a network of relationship through different series of translation.

Ethnographic methods, including in-depth interviews with policy makers, farmers, Monsanto representatives, civil society actors and researchers, were used to gain new insights into the difficulties encountered by these actors when trying to implement Bt cotton. 60 interviews were analyzed against a backdrop of detailed historical studies, based on examining a large amount of grey literature, published between 1961 and 2016.

This paper argues that the introduction of Bt cotton into the agriculture system in Burkina Faso, has resulted in the devaluation of traditional knowledge and indigenous science, thereby displacing the control of national actors (research, farmers, state, civil society) over the ST-System of cotton in favour of private foreign actors and their allies, who use this control and maximise their economic gain at the expense of large numbers of small farmers and the national agricultural research system, thus challenging the new knowledge-centred development paradigm's optimistic abstract view about the role of science and technology in development. This thesis demonstrates that the debate on transfer or internal development of technology in developing countries should not overshadow an understanding of the forms of political control (both domestically and internationally) that science, technology and Innovation bring with them, and their local impact. In addition, the social inequalities among actors of the system in relation to their pattern of control are investigated.

<footnote n="1">1. INERA, CNRST, Ouagadougou 09, Burkina Faso.</footnote>
Findings show that the adoption and implementation of the Bt cotton innovation diffusion for socio-economic development in Burkina Faso was shaped by local actors competing for control of financial resources and power positions. The first key finding from the analysis is that in addition to the technological monopoly, Bt cotton represented an intervention in a context of commercial monopoly by the local industry. Before Bt cotton, the market was under the monopoly of industry (SOFITEX), constructed during the last century, the main characteristic of which was to control farmers. SOFITEX became the intermediary of Monsanto, which does not have any direct contact with the cotton small farmers. The relationship between farmers and the industries is characterised by the industries providing them with Bt cotton seeds, now provided in collaboration with Monsanto.

With the introduction of Bt cotton, the exploitive relationship has worsened from the perspective of farmers, who now take more loans due to the high price of the Bt technology. For instance, the Bt cotton seeds are about $55 per bag compared with conventional cotton which is $10 for the same quantity. In addition it is believed by small farmers that Bt cotton requires more, not less input. This means the financial spending of the farmers has increased with Bt cotton so there are no financial returns when one considers the amount of money spent compared to the amount of money gained. In contrast, large scale farmers have some advantages and privileges due to their position. These leading farmers are able to discuss different aspects of cotton growth with industries and researchers and formed, together with them, the Inter-Professional Association (AIC-B). The issues related to cotton research, prices, chemicals and insecticides inputs, cotton seeds, farmers' training, and so on are all discussed and agreed by this association (AIC-B). These farmers have some advantages such as meetings, seminars and workshops attendance which give them prestige and extract cash. Monsanto and industries use these extra advantages, which has the effect of reducing reported complaints and encourages and promotes Bt cotton cultivation to their farmer colleagues.

However, health and time saving are also potential advantages that Bt cotton technology brought. Nevertheless, whereas work release is directly measurable, the other health issues related to Bt toxin remain uncertain, as many experiences from farmers in others countries contradict Bt cotton producers' hopes in Burkina Faso. For example, in India, South Africa and Argentina, USA many farmers noticed some health-related issues from Bt cotton growth such as skin rashes and itching. Sometimes, Bt cotton picking resulted in dizziness, the death of animals and the destruction of consumable weeds.

Apart from these Bt cotton implementation has aggravated the exploitation of farmers by industries for Monsanto's benefit. The benefits for local researchers were individual rather than national. Monsanto trained some of them in its own laboratory in USA, which has allowed it to reduce its financial spending, to control not only what it does not want to be widely known (its technology), but also to control the modalities of the experimentations to its advantage. In this case at the local level, the benefits become individual; it does not have a positive effect on the development of local institutional capacity. Moreover, to control the sources of actual and potential resistance, Monsanto excluded researchers who could oppose its strategy from the research network. These researchers were the ones which were at the starting point of the negotiation (at the Cameroon meeting in 1999) and have an appropriate understanding of the research sector and relevant research expertise. Therefore, the weak influence of farmers as well as researchers on the institutional framework has limited their ability to act as countervailing power sources and press for a more equitable implementation of the innovation.

With respect to the current definition of development, the science per se does not lead to development. As the above findings suggest, the introduction of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso resulted in an overall growth of both productivity and financial gain. However, what they expected was, rather than just improving the careers of individuals, the new technology would strengthen national agricultural research capacities in a way which would lead to more sustainable scientific and technological research. Monsanto has preferred the less costly training of just a few researchers, although this was not what was negotiated at the beginning of the innovation project. As such, developing countries required help to build their own capacities paying attention to their socio-technical context so as to make the capacities acquired sustainable and
relevant for development goals. The focus of Monsanto on a few individuals, though positive for those individuals, is not sustainable from a development perspective. What one can see from this is rather a process of expropriation of local capabilities (local knowledge and technology, researchers, institutions) for the interests of Monsanto, the industries and some allied big farmers.

The role of science technology and innovation cannot be separated from the interweaving relationships within which scientific and technological resources are produced and used. It is these patterns of relationships which explain the above described distribution of benefits. The introduction of Bt cotton into the agricultural system in Burkina Faso has resulted in the devaluation of traditional knowledge and indigenous science, with the consequence of displacing the control of national actors (research, farmers, state) over the ST-system of cotton in favour of the interests and control of a private foreign actor, which has used this control to maximise its economic gain at the expense of a large number of small poor farmers and the national agricultural research system.

Researchers critical of Monsanto have been displaced, the regulatory framework has been captured, and the market has been monopolised. It is not adequate to impute this to a single actor, because as the analysis suggests, this process of expropriation has been collectively implemented; although Monsanto generally led the initiatives, it found key actors willing to co-operate, including higher officials of the state. May be the problem of development is a vicious circle!

Finally, in early 2016, Bt cotton was abandoned by Burkina Faso. At that time, the country counted totally 7 years of commercialization and more than 10 years in Bt cotton implementation. The main reason according to Dowd-Uribe, and Schnurr, (2016), is that there is a decline concerning the length of the cotton fiber which “has undermined the reputation of Burkinabè cotton and cut into its value on the international market. When coupled with the decline in overall lint due to the lower ginning ratio, the inferior quality characteristics of the Bt cultivars have compromised the economic position of Burkinabè cotton companies.” (Dowd-Uribe, and Schnurr, 2016: Online). Burkina Faso which was spearheading of transgenic cotton in West Africa has decided to return to the conventional cotton. In addition, local news also revealed that the industry is suing Monsanto ($84 million) for compensation toward lost and damage caused by its technology. However, to my point of view the technical aspect of this reversal may not be actually the fundamental reason that has led Burkina Faso to abandon because, the adoption of the Bt cotton was not actually technical; as demonstrated by Compaore (2015), there was a functional conventional cotton system and the outcome in terms of productivity and economic gain were steady before Bt cotton. It appears to me that the reason for the suspension of Bt cotton could be political instead of technical. Recent intervention of policy makers on the matter reveals that Burkina Faso hasn’t abandon the Bt cotton; instead, it *suspended* its growth for the time being in order to push further the reflexion through research, said the SOFITEX director early this year in local newspapers. Thus, this current trend on cotton growth system in Burkina Faso remains very interesting and open up new research paths to investigate.

The contribution of this article has been to provide empirical evidence from the implementation of an innovation in the agricultural sector in a developing country. it demonstrated that the debate on transfer or internal development of technology in developing countries should not overshadow the forms of political control (both domestically and internationally) that science, technology and innovation bring with them.
# Roots to empowerment

Toon Defoer<fnref n="1" />

Thousands of smallholder farmers and mid-sized entrepreneurs have strengthened capacities to negotiate in partnerships along commodity value chains resulting to increased profits and benefits.

ICRA develops networks of actors in commodity value chains and strengthens capacities of farmers, input dealers, processors, traders and intermediaries to broker grassroots-level agribusiness clusters and thereby access different market outlets.

A network of ICRA certified agribusiness trainers in west Africa, strengthens the competences of local intermediaries called coaches to broker partnerships and build trust among cluster actors and accelerate inclusive business development for targeted markets and products. Below is an example of these interventions.

The cassava partnership in Nigeria, led by the starch processing company Psaltry Int. is one of the examples ICRA's intervention spheres in the 2SCALE project. Since about 18 months after the start of the project, Psaltry has increased its cassava processing capacity from 50-70 tons per day to 150 to 200 on its two production lines.

ICRA identified four major business issues, which formed the basis of the set-up of a capacity strengthening plan, including more than 600 farmers grouped into 6 agribusiness clusters. Before ICRA's intervention, farmers, traders, transporters and others in the value chain were only concerned about their individual issues. But good business should avoid having a chaotic scene where everybody seems to be grabbing one another by the neck. Farmers complained about high transport costs because truck loading was not optimal. There was delay in payment by Psaltry to farmers and transporters. There was also the problem of access to agro-services and credit. Equally troubling was the low farm productivity.

The work of Dr Gbenga, one of ICRA's trainer-mentor based in Nigeria and the team of coaches associated to the agribusiness clusters has now begun to bear fruits. The farmers formed groups united in an apex farmer organization that led to the review of transport prices with the transport union. They were able to negotiate transport costs down by 20% and instead of paying per trip, they now pay the transporters per ton of cassava loaded. A transport committee now exists at the cluster level to ensure that the business relationship between farmers and transporters remain transparent and cordial. Psaltry has also had to improve its transparency and farmers can now read the digital weighing counter. Psaltry's payment approach has been reviewed so that now, the farmer gets a credit alert on their mobile phone through Psaltry's electronic payment system almost immediately upon delivery of the produce.

Negotiations with Nigeria's First City Monument Bank on a credit, led to a decrease in annual interest rate from 24% to 9%.

Through sessions on good agricultural practices, farmers now are adopting best practices when it comes to planting and other management issues, and yield increases are expected from 12 tons to about 25 tons per hectare. In addition, they now plant the high starch producing variety of cassava that was introduced by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The high price volatility of cassava has also made the clusters put in place modalities for setting up a price monitoring and forecasting team. The team will regularly negotiate prices with Psaltry and other buyers on behalf of the producers to get to a win-win situation for all the actors.

The activities above benefited from ICRA's work in the 2SCALE project, one of the largest agribusiness incubators in Africa.

<footnote n="1">1. International Centre for Development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.</footnote>
# Organic agriculture and food security in Cameroon

Gerard De La Paix Bayiha<fnref n="1" />, Ludovic Temple<fnref n="2" /> and Syndhia Mathé<fnref n="2" />

The objective of this work is to evaluate the relationship between organic farming and food security in Cameroon. To achieve this, our study focused on field surveys through semi structured interviews in the Central and Littoral regions of Cameroon, a bibliographical review of gray and scientific literature, construction of the analysis grids; Definition of the typologies of organic agriculture and their potential consequences on food security based on a prototype developed in Benin as part of the ABASS project (Diversity of biological agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa and contribution to food security); Organization of two reflection workshops in the Central and Littoral regions of Cameroon, as these are the areas where most governmental and non governmental institutions and enterprises are located. These workshops were the occasion to mobilize a typology of actors because of their important contribution to the debates in progress on the models of agricultural development and that of organic farming in order to define organic farming in the context of Cameroon, To share knowledge bases on the topic among participants and to characterize its relationships or interactions with food security. These actors were:

* the current national research institutions (institutes and universities) or international organizations favoring emergence<fnref n="3" /> organic farming;

* State structures, non-governmental organizations, extension structures capable of putting in place regulatory mechanisms for organic farming;

* contractors either in the agri-supply sector for the AB (bio-fertilizers, seeds, biological control agent...), or that of the production (farmer) and the agro-food processing of the products. At the end of this work, we arrive on the one hand to the result of the existence of three types of organic farming in Cameroon: “certified”, “natural”, “hybrid”. On the other hand, to evaluate the potential consequences of these biological agricultures on each dimension of food security. This evaluation has shown that each typology has more or less strong intensities with food security but with a better balance with “natural” organic farming. These results lead to proposals concerning the development of the organic farming sector in Cameroon, considered as a niche of innovation through the transition model developed by Geels. This model allowed us to highlight the different trajectories that it can take. In this way, we propose in a global way to introduce an organic agricultural law which would entail, among other things, the creation of jobs, the setting of government objectives and necessary actions as well as the financial support to achieve them, Destination of the international organic markets (niche market of innovation) source of obtaining foreign exchange for Cameroon, to support interprofessional and organizations to encourage the transformation and finally the setting up of a network with the IFOAM which will participate Probably with the Network of Organic Research in Africa (NOARA) to organize a Regional Conference on Organic Agriculture in Cameroon in 2018, etc.

The widespread innovation that will make organic farming attractive to producers will bring economic benefits and will trigger a new wave of reconversions requiring more funding for research and extension.

A reflection for future research seems to be emerging around the question of assessing the impact of these organic agricultural models on food security in Cameroon through field surveys highlighting Potential indicators (dietary diversity score and index of wealth, index of hunger) due to their ease of use. Indeed, this impact calls for reflection on the evolution of certified organic farming, “natural” organic farming and “hybrid” organic farming that deserves to be supervised.

<footnote n="1">1. Université de Yaoundé, Cameroon.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. CIRAD, UMR Innovation, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. A window of opportunity to capture contracts, a place of experimentation on new technical fronts, a place of experimentation of new inputs produced locally, etc.</footnote>
# Capacity for change: the common framework on capacity development for agricultural innovation systems

Christian Hoste<fnref n="1" />, Abdoulaye Saley Moussa<fnref n="2" />, Christian Grovermann<fnref n="2" /> and Karin Nichterlein<fnref n="2" />

Agricultural innovation is key to feeding a growing population with changing diets, while reducing the pressure on the earth's resources. The Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP) has been initiated by the G20 as a multilateral dynamic facilitation mechanism to promote the development of national capacities for agricultural innovation in the tropics, where most developing countries are located. The capacity gap is especially wide in this region, while capacity development efforts are often poorly coordinated among actors and too small in scale. TAP aims to pave the way for better coherence and greater impact of capacity development interventions in support of agricultural innovation that will better meet the demands of small farmers, small and medium-sized agribusinesses and consumers.

A key component of the TAP Action Plan is the Common Framework on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems. The Framework focuses on 1) consolidating the diversity of capacity development approaches in support of agricultural innovation processes and systems; 2) promoting a shift of mind set and attitudes using an agricultural innovation systems perspective; 3) providing concepts, principles, approaches and tools to better understand the agricultural innovation systems architecture, assess capacity development needs, and plan, implement, and evaluate capacity development interventions; and 4) clarifying the role of facilitation, learning, documentation and knowledge management for enabling innovation.

The Common Framework was developed in 2015 through a highly participatory process, incorporating inputs from a wide range of experts chosen from donors, research, extension and education institutions as well as regional and international organizations involved in the field of agricultural innovation. After being approved by TAP partners in January 2016, the Framework is now being applied in eight pilot countries (Angola, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Laos and Rwanda) through the EU-funded project on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS). This project is jointly implemented by Agrinatura and FAO and uses a dual approach of strengthening capacities to innovate and enabling policies at the local and national levels through policy dialogue and a range of needs-based capacity development interventions. Also as part of the project, a knowledge sharing system, called TAPipedia, is currently being developed to widely share the TAP Framework concepts and tools.

<footnote n="1">1. Agreenium, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. FAO, Roma, Italy.</footnote>
# Exploring capacity to innovate concepts and its assessment in Cameroon

Sophie Allebone-Webb<fnref n="1" />, Syndhia Mathé<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> and Bernard Triomphe<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />

‘Capacity to innovate’ is an emerging concept, especially in agriculture and rural development. There is no universally agreed definition for this concept, but many authors agree that it refers generally to the ability of actors to continuously identify constraints and opportunities, and to mobilise capabilities and resources in response – *i.e.* to produce and sustain innovation processes in a dynamic systems environment. Increasingly, capacity to innovate (C2I) is recognised as playing a critical role in successfully responding to a changing external environment. Facilitating and building this capacity through Research and Development (R&D) interventions is therefore crucial for building farming systems’ adaptiveness and for improving the resilience and livelihoods of poor farmers and other rural actors. Yet there is no generally recognised set of metrics to assess C2I, nor is it clear how local actors understand and make use of C2I on the ground.

This poster presents the first results of a study that explores various components of C2I and how local actors perceive them, and aims to develop indicators to assess them. We looked at four interventions that have aimed to improve capacity to innovate in Cameroon (Table 1) to identify which capacities were developed and how the intervention approach facilitated that change (if at all).

A review of the literature was used as a starting point for developing an assessment framework to measure changes in C2I. We identified four ‘core’ capacities as being to a) envisage, create and be open to new ideas; b) to connect with others to access and understand new information and resources; c) to iteratively experiment, take risks, analyse and assess; and d) to work with others to achieve change. We conducted 61 semi-structured interviews and ten focus groups with producers, transformers, facilitators and researchers to explore these core capacities and their component sub-capacities. This included asking producers about specific times when having a particular capacity was essential, assessing stakeholders’ perceptions of capacity development over time (at the individual and group levels), and the relative importance of different capacities. We also aimed to identify “smart” potential indicators for measuring C2I which local actors could relate to.

Initial results show that depending on the specific intervention, producer groups involved in them have developed different aspects of C2I (Tables 2A–D), and that this has implications for how new innovations are adapted and adopted. Priority capacities as perceived by producers may often be different from those prioritised by researchers or emphasised in the literature, with producers valuing highly the capacity to form partnerships (particularly those related to marketing) while viewing capacity to experiment as a low priority, and vice versa (Table 3). This difference may be explained by the fact that interventions tend to focus on the initial stages of the innovation process (having and adapting a new idea for example), while producers tend to emphasize the later stages of the innovation trajectory, such as marketing and scaling up. Furthermore, producers emphasize skills closely related to capacities of a group to get things done, which do not limit themselves to innovation.

We are currently testing a set of 20 quantitative and qualitative C2I indicators to assess 10 capacities and sub-capacities (Table 4) and the individual and group level in the four case studies in Cameroon. This is part of an on-going project that aims to explore how intervention approach affects the degree and manner in which capacity to innovate is built and the subsequent impact for development outcomes. A better understanding of how, and under what circumstances, interventions contribute to building C2I may help practitioners to improve the ability of R&D interventions to achieve large-scale impact.

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR Innovation, F-34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. IITA, Cameroon.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA), Mexico.</footnote>
# Agriculture innovation partnerships in Angola: successful stories

Ana Melo<fnref n="1" />, Joaquim César<fnref n="2" />, Luís Mira Da Silva, Ana Henriques<fnref n="1" />, Mpanzo Domingos<fnref n="2" /> and Susana Costa<fnref n="3" />

## Executive Summary

Angola is one of Africa's resource-rich countries with a great potential for agriculture, nevertheless the agricultural sector has not yet fully recovered from the de-capitalization experienced during the years of civil conflict, and agricultural exports are currently negligible. Thus, development of the agricultural sector is considered by the government as a national priority. In this study, we identified successful histories of agriculture innovation systems in place in Angola, that could be used as models and, along with the implementation of CDAIS project, could contribute to create a new mindset among the actors of agriculture's value chains, which will privilege networking actions to overcome functional and technical issues to foster the agricultural sector.

## Angolan agriculture context

Angola, with a total population of 24.38 million inhabitants, covers an area of about 1.25 million km<fnref n="2" /> and is located on the Atlantic coast of south-western Africa. According to the 2014 population census, 52% of the total population are women and about 38% live in rural areas[1]. It is also worth mentioning that about 37% of the population is below the poverty line and 85% of the poor are in the rural areas and depend on agriculture. Angola is one of Africa's resource-rich countries, with a large potential for economic growth based on many mineral resources, particularly oil and diamonds, but also with a great potential for agriculture.

Before the independence, in 1975, Angola was a successful exporter of agriculture commodities, with special emphasis to coffee being the third largest world exporter in the 70s.

After the independence, most of Portuguese farmers left the country and many of the former commercial farms and plantations were converted into state farms, which were progressively abandoned.

A civil war, between 1975 and 2002, resulted in a virtual collapse of the commercial production, as large numbers of rural inhabitants either fled or reverted to subsistence agricultural production. Infrastructures heavily suffered, with widespread destruction of roads, bridges, irrigation systems and warehouses, and the presence of thousands of land mines in rural areas[2] made agriculture impossible in many places. Moreover, agricultural education, research and extension institutions were seriously affected.

Despite an investment program in place since the end of the civil war to rehabilitate the main infrastructures, contributing to improve the situation, the agricultural sector has not yet fully recovered from the de-capitalization experienced during these years, and agricultural exports are currently negligible.

The agriculture sector, corresponding to 8% of the total arable land's (57 million hectares) use, contributes approximately with 10 percent of the growth domestic product (GDP)[3]. In addition, crop yields remain very low as compared to other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The oil sector accounts for almost 45% of the GDP, 95% of total export value and 80% of total government revenues.

Nowadays, Angola imports most of the agriculture products consumed and with the decrease of the oil barrel's price, enduring since 2014, the situation is hardly bearable. Thus, a diversification of the economy is needed and essential, being the development of the agricultural sector a major national priority.

<footnote n="1">1. Universidade de Lisboa, ISA, Lisboa, Portugal.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. IIA, Angola.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. FAO, Angola.</footnote>
Family farming is the dominant mode in Angola. Family farmers usually produce for their own consumption but also include products for the market. Depending on the way that farmers are organized in terms of production and land tenure, different types of family farms can be identified[4] (Table I).

National development priorities for agriculture 2012-17.

The National Development Programme PND (2013-17)[5] includes programs to support the agricultural activity, namely: Program to develop the family farming; Program to develop the National food security; Programs to promote the Agribusiness; Rehabilitation of the irrigated perimeters; Support Rural investigation; Programs to finance agriculture, by promoting the private investment in agribusiness; Programs to support the rural trade.

With the implementation of those programs the Government aims particularly to increase the production of cereals, legumes, roots and tubers, chicken's, cow's, goat's and sheep's meat, milk and sugar.

Global level policy interventions are also needed in the informal sector to provide development of local markets and to institutionalize economic activities targeted at people with potential for entrepreneurship.

## The role of the Capacity Development for Agriculture Innovation Systems (CDAIS) project to enhance innovation in Angolan agriculture

The CDAIS project, funded by the European Commission and jointly implemented by Agrinatura[6], FAO, and Instituto de Investigação Agrária on behalf of the Angolan government, aims at making agricultural innovation systems more efficient and sustainable in meeting the demands of farmers, agribusiness and consumers, taking into account the different dimensions of capacity development (individuals, organizations and enabling environment) as well as its functional and technical capacities.

The CDAIS project identified three integrated learning and action-oriented processes expected to deliver results at the country level:

* Development of a global Common Framework on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems that will guide the assessment and investments in this field;

* Co-assessment and development of country-specific Capacity Development needs, visions and action plans;

* Co-design and co-implementation of demand-driven and efficient Capacity Development interventions around priority themes and value chains.

The implementation of CDAIS will contribute to create a new mindset among the actors of agriculture's value chains, which will privilege networking actions to overcome functional and technical issues, empowering the agricultural sector.

The CDAIS project may not only create further awareness of the need to deepen the existing interactions among the agricultural sector and start new ones, but also promote activities that enhance these interactions and trigger the consolidation or start the coordination exchange mechanisms and networks among the stakeholders in the agriculture's sector.

## Successful stories

### Kukula Ku Moxi project at BIOCOM

BIOCOM is installed at SODEPAC in Malanje province, Cacuso municipality, with an area of 42.000 ha, which produces and commercializes sugar, ethanol and electric power produced from biomass; the sugar is entirely directed to the internal market, the energy to the National Energy Company (ENE) and ethanol to the National Company of Fuels (Sonangol). The company has several social responsibility interventions in the rural community, namely the “Kukula Ku Moxi” initiative that aims the development of family agriculture and wealth generation, in 20 rural communities. This initiative is an example of direct
interaction between the private sector and small-farmers, with knowledge transfer regarding agricultural practices and management.

The project is one of the agribusiness projects supported by the government, being mainly developed by the private sector and is considered a successful innovation case.

## MOSAP - Market Oriented Smallholder Agriculture Project

MOSAP is a World Bank-project, supported since 2008, and implemented over the past years in three provinces (Bié, Huambo and Malanje). MOSAP was designed to increase agricultural production through the provision of improved agricultural services and investment support to rural smallholder farmers.

MOSAP produced changes in perception, behavior and communication language from beneficiaries. These beneficiaries have also acquired independence and raise new initiatives like the practice of interaction between associations of different municipalities to share difficulties, namely at the level of product commercialization.

In addition, there was political appropriation of this project, enabling it with a favorable environment.

## SKAN -sharing knowledge agrifood networks

The main objective of the SKAN platform is to share knowledge and technology in an integrated approach among the actors of the Agricultural Innovation Systems, between Europe, Africa and Latin America. Specifically and currently, it is established in Cabo Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Brasil and Portugal. This platform may have a role in the future activities of Agricultural Innovation Systems, since it can be used as a tool to promote networking among the agrifood sector (research, academia, extension services, NGOs and private sector of the agrifood row). SKAN's integrated approach focuses on strengthening the partnerships between science and industry, integration of available resources (other platforms, scientific knowledge, funding sources, etc), enabling the environment for international projects in consortium and empowering local actors to ensure projects' sustainability. With this purpose, SKAN acts with a facilitation component, enhancing the potential for knowledge and technology transfer.

## National Agricultural Innovation Systems' actors and Potential innovation partnerships

The stakeholder mapping exercise carried out during the inception workshop identified the key actors/ stakeholders in AIS in Angola and discussed the roles and challenges encountered when making AIS operational and effective. The maps developed by the participants identified the following actors and roles as key in AIS:

* Government (to define policies to ensure sustainable national production, investments in infrastructures and communicates with all players of AIS).

* Universities and Research (to identify problems, to disclose information for the extension services and farmers).

* Extension Services (to link the Universities/Research and the farmers).

* ONG (to organize and to communicate among all actors in the AIS).

* Cooperatives of farmers (to identify the problems, document and try to solve problems by interrelating with other actors in the AIS).

* Rural schools (to disclose the knowledge between all the players of the AIS, more farmers focused).

* Banks (to finance feasible projects, to permit the access to credit and private investors).

* Fertilizer dealers (to perform market studies, and to develop a portfolio of products adapted to the local market, to improve logistics and communication among the players of AIS).
* Insurance companies (to create insurance's products that fit Angolan's farmers, to communicate with all players and to find suitable solutions).

* Media (to disclose information of the AIS to all players).

Consolidating the contribution of Agricultural Innovation Systems' actors during the scoping study and inception workshop, 14 potential innovation partnerships were listed and shared with a working group that will narrow it to 10 for a final selection of 5 to be decided by the national steering committee.

## Final remarks

The Angolan agriculture system holds a great potential to turn the agri-food sector in one of the most prominent and profitable sectors of the country economy.

Nevertheless, its environment still requires the development of general and specific innovation policies and investments to achieve the optimization of the potential resources. In addition, mindsets need to be renovated creating more collaborative and networking attitudes to allow sharing knowledge and benefits among sector stakeholders.

The agricultural sector of Angola is aware of the need for further mechanisms of national coordination for sharing ideas and common difficulties.

To respond to the need of further and effective mechanisms for coordination and exchange among the agriculture sector actors, many networks are trying to consolidate or emerge, such as the AIA – Industrial Association of Angola; CAFANG – Association of producers of coffee in Angola; APA – Angolan Association of Producers (being designed); SKAN-Angola – Sharing Knowledge Agrifood Networks.

Most challenges raised by the actors are similar and related to the environment level. These can be mainly grouped by: i) general agriculture policies and investments; ii) agricultural innovation policies and investments and iii) cultures, behaviors and attitudes.

## Acknowledgements

AGRINATURA-EEIG and FAO are greatly indebted to the Angolan government for continuous support. In addition, we are grateful to all institutions and personnel that hosted us for interviews or shared documents that were most relevant to the study presented here in.

INE. 2014. Resultados preliminares, recenseamento geral da população e habitação – 2014

MINADER. 1996. Agriculture Review Development Options.

WB. 2013. Angola economic update. issue 1.

ADB. 2009. Angola. Country gender profile. OSAN

MINPLAN. 2012. National Development Programme PND (2013-17)

*A Consortium of 31 European Universities and Research Institutes (http://www.agrinatura.eu) working in agricultural research, education, training and capacity strengthening for development.*
# Government vs private sector led innovation partnerships in Ethiopia: challenges and opportunities for capacity development

Amanuel Assefa<fnref n="1" />, Hanneke Vermeulen<fnref n="2" />, Gizachew Lemma<fnref n="1" />,
Yirga Chilot<fnref n="3" /> and Abdoulaye Saley Moussa<fnref n="4" />

The Agrinatura and FAO supported Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS) initiative has triggered tremendous interest in Ethiopia to learn how innovation partnerships could be best supported and managed to achieve anticipated results. In the mainstream Agricultural research and development systems in Ethiopia, innovation is mainly perceived as a new technology developed to improve agricultural production and productivity. This though has dominated the country for many years and the institutional behaviors of research and extension agencies were firmly founded on the transfer of technology model. This has had its own benefits and disadvantages too. However under the changing context in Ethiopia, where the role and participation of the private sector and non-governmental organizations is increasingly growing and farmers’ organizational capacity developing to voice the needs of their members, a need for a new partnership business model for innovation is emerging. It has been witnessed that a number of value chains are developing quickly and the traditional and restricted partnership of research, extension agents and farmers could no longer address the emerging needs and complexity of the innovation systems. Farmers are taking their own initiatives to partner with processors and input suppliers. The private sector actors are also engaging with smallholder farmers in the production and marketing fronts. Agricultural innovation is therefore becoming not a function of the relationships of farmers and extension workers alone, but a joint and interactive process of learning and partnering with many actors in the value chains. This calls for an approach to facilitate innovation, which is now not understood as a technology perse, but a process of creating new values as a result of interaction of relevant actors in a specific domain (e.g. technological, institutional, organizational and policy). With the CDAIS project a scoping study was conducted countrywide and several innovation niches/partnerships were identified and selected to pilot the capacity development approach. The government led Agricultural Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council (ADPLAC) and the Ethiopian Milk processor industries Association initiative for a national task force to stimulate demands for dairy products are two examples in which systematic learning is taking place. The ADPLAC is structured at Federal, Regional, Zonal, and District level to facilitate learning and sharing as well as providing feedback on approaches, policies and regulatory issues. The private sector platform is on the other hand interested to counter challenge the low level of milk consumption in Ethiopia, although there is a growing trend of the industry for fresh and pasteurized milk and a remarkable increase of middle-income segment of the society. The joint platform, which includes diverse partners, is therefore working on opening up new and sustainable markets. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the two initiatives and draws lessons on the challenges and opportunities for building innovation capacity and how to make innovation platforms more robust and functional.

<footnote n="1">1. FAO, Ethiopia.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. ICRA, The Netherlands.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. EIAR, Ethiopia.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. FAO, Roma, Italy.</footnote>
## Session 6

*Private standards in agri-chains: evaluating their outcomes and assessing their impact*
# The role of certification on hired labour in banana plantations – cross country analysis of economic, social and empowerment benefits

Fedes Van Rijn<fnref n="1" />, Ricardo Fort<fnref n="2" /> and Ruerd Ruben<fnref n="1" />

## Background

In the last three decades NGOs, traders, consumers and retailers have become increasingly involved in initiatives to improve social and environmental conditions under which tropical products are produced with certification as an important tool. While the evidence on the impact of certification among smallholder continues to grow, there is very little rigorous evidence on the effects of certification on wageworkers at plantations. While a few recent papers try to address the potential contribution of certification as a tool for improving wage workers' welfare (e.g. Rayolds 2014; Makita 2012), we only know two research projects that aim to address the net effects of certification at plantation level (Ostertag 2014; Cameron et al. 2014) covering the cocoa, coffee, flower and tea export sectors in Ecuador, Ghana, Ethiopia, Uganda and India. However, these few studies are far from conclusive on the role of certification in these supply chains.

Meanwhile the need for evidence increases given the significant, and increasing, share of households in developing countries being involved on a plantation as a wageworker. There seems more evidence on the (potential) role of labour certification in global manufacturing. Based on various studies (Barrientos and Smith 2007; Locke et al. 2009; O'Rourke 2006; Seidman 2008), Raynolds' (2014) describes a recurring finding that day to day context of workers is strongly shaped by (inter)national laws and (written or unwritten) norms of conduct– both are difficult/challenging to audit and to influence. In other words: the potential of certification as an instrument to sustainable and improved well-being among wageworkers at plantations is not at all clear.

One of the actors active in this field is Fairtrade. Fairtrade's vision is a world in which all producers can enjoy secure and sustainable livelihoods, fulfil their potential and decide on their future. They aim to do this through various interventions, such as setting standards for hired labour organisations. Workers on farms and in factories are among the most vulnerable people in global trade. Fairtrade works to improve the lives of workers by requiring that their employers comply with Fairtrade's hired labour standards which was developed to make sure workers receive a fairer share of the economic benefits of trade.

Based on a recent research project conducted in the hired labour banana sector in 2015 for Fairtrade International and the Fairtrade Foundation, this paper analyses the contribution of certification in the banana hired labour sector by focusing on economic, social and empowerment benefits in a cross country analysis. Bananas is one of the most highly traded fruits in the world and a product that makes up a significant percentage of the export revenues of many Latin American and Caribbean countries. It is also a significant product within the Fairtrade system – both in terms of market demand and producer coverage. In the last decade Major supermarket chains have become important players in the global banana trade due to the increasing concentration of market power in the retail markets of the main banana consuming countries and because large retailers are increasingly purchasing directly from growers or smaller wholesalers.

The study focuses on two countries in Latin America that are very important in terms of FT certified banana production: Dominican Republic and Colombia. The differences in terms of institutional settings, work regulations and labour unions, make the analysis of FT effects more challenging but also more interesting.

<footnote n="1">1. Wageningen University and Research, Netherlands.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. GRADE, Peru.</footnote>
Methodology

This study compares the situation of wageworkers from Fairtrade-certified plantations to the situation of
wageworkers from similar but non-Fairtrade certified plantations. The main body of evidence is survey-
based, accompanied with in-depth interviews and structured plantation observations. Given the large
difference in the number, size and type of plantations, the applied sampling strategy differed by country.
Factors that were taken into account in selecting plantations included, but were not limited to, plantation
size, location, length of certification, supply chain and compliance with other certification standards.

A total of 20 plantations were included in this study: twelve out of the twenty plantations are Fairtrade certified and eight are non-Fairtrade certified. The four plantations left are very recently certified Fairtrade plantations. In total 410 wageworkers were randomly selected to participate in the worker survey. Dominican Republic 11 plantations were included of which five Fairtrade certified plantations, one Fairtrade applicant and five non-Fairtrade certified plantations. In total 369 wageworkers were randomly selected to participate in the worker survey.

In analysing the contribution of Fairtrade certification on hired labourers in the banana sector, the study focuses on three key areas of benefits: economic, social benefits and empowerment-related. While the first two issues are often prevalent in impact evaluation research of certification, the latter is not commonly addressed and we believe it is important from a plantation level perspective. To truly change codes of conduct at that level on the long term, bottom up changes may be needed, rather than top-down reform (see e.g. Raynolds 2015).

Each theme covers various sub-themes, and each sub-theme includes various ‘topics of analyses’, in line with Fairtrade’s theory of change. While translating the topics of analysis into specific questions for the structured worker survey, we built as much as possible on existing indicators, definitions and instruments (ILO, PPI by Schreiner (2014), HFIAS by FAO; Anker and Anker, 2013; Fort and Ruben, 2008; Ostertag et al., 2014; Smith, 2010; Nelson and Martin, 2013; Lyall, 2014). For some indicators we have added recall, self-assessment and attribution questions.

Differences and/or changes might be the result of factors other than Fairtrade certification including
differences in observable characteristics such as education, age or gender. These factors are controlled
for using a mix of statistical models including regression models and propensity score matching. Non
observed were accounted for as much as possible in our methodological design.

Results

Dominican Republic

The contribution of Fairtrade in terms of economic benefits seems high in Dominican Republic. First, results indicate there is no observed difference in wages between Fairtrade certified and non-Fairtrade certified plantations. Second, Fairtrade certification has a clear positive influence on in-kind benefits in terms of adult education, transport, health care and schooling for children traceable to the Fairtrade premium. Third, there are signs of a positive impact of Fairtrade certification on a plantation workers sense of job security with workers on non-Fairtrade certified plantations reporting much lower levels of job security. Fourth, wageworkers from Fairtrade certified plantations are more food secure and have more savings.

Contribution of Fairtrade to labour conditions are unclear, but high on social dialogue. First, the (poten-
tial) impact of Fairtrade on working conditions in terms of worker rights and health and safety measures
is still uncertain. This is in large part due to the difficulties associated with collecting reliable data on the
actual worker rights that plantation workers receive or have access to. Second, while the awareness of
grievance and sexual harassment policies is still low, it is higher among workers on Fairtrade plantations.
This result is considered to be a direct result of Fairtrade policy in this area and is supported by anecdotal
evidence. Third, workers on Fairtrade certified plantations appear to be more easily able to present their concerns to their supervisors and plantation management than workers on non-Fairtrade certified plantations and also have the feeling that their concerns are listened to.

Fairtrade seems to have a large potential to empower wageworkers. First, Fairtrade workers are found to score higher on a number of empowerment-related indicators including living wages (through in-kind benefits) and the amount of training received. Second, the higher percentage of workers represented by a workers' union is also linked to the requirements of Fairtrade. Anecdotal evidence also indicates workers they feel better able to communicate with plantation management due to the existence of the various workers committees; feel more competent due to the technical training that they receive and are more positive about the effects of joining a worker.

## Colombia

Fairtrade seems to have a high contribution in terms of economic benefits as a result of the Fairtrade premium. First, results indicate there is no difference in the primary wages received by workers on Fairtrade certified and non-Fairtrade certified plantations. This is not unexpected in the Colombian context given that union representatives are responsible for negotiating wages with individual plantations on behalf of all workers in the region. Second, Fairtrade certification has a clear positive influence on in-kind benefits through the premium use especially in terms of housing and education for young people and adults. Third, while there are signs of a positive impact of Fairtrade certification on a worker's sense of job security – workers Fairtrade certified plantation report a lower level of job security. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting topic for future research. Fourth, despite the higher in-kind benefits in terms of housing and adult education, the role of Fairtrade certification in improving a worker's standard of living is not evident. This despite the fact that workers have been employed by Fairtrade certified plantations for 12 years on average and most plantations have been certified for more than two years. A second wave of data is needed to confirm these results and explore their implications in more detail. Contribution of Fairtrade in terms of social benefits is inconclusive. First, survey evidence indicates that the (potential) impact of Fairtrade certification in terms of social benefit is limited as banana plantations are already required to comply with many of the working conditions required by Fairtrade and/or Rainforest Alliance certification, either by law or through collective bargaining agreements. Second, the (potential) impact of Fairtrade certification on Occupational Health & Safety remains unclear. Third, while awareness of grievance and sexual harassment policies is generally good across all Colombian banana plantations, it is even higher on Fairtrade certified plantations.

Fairtrade may have large potential to empower wageworkers. The vast majority of surveyed workers were satisfied with their personal situation and progress at work and they credit Fairtrade with playing an important role in that. The higher in-kind benefits and specialised training in particular appear to be the mechanisms through which workers feel more empowered. One important point to mention is that a number of banana plantations in the sample have been Rainforest Alliance certified since 1998 with two in the comparison group obtaining Rainforest Alliance certification in 1996. It is important to be aware that this may exert downward pressure on the estimates of the (potential) impact of Fairtrade certification.

## Conclusion

This study addresses the need to gain more insight into effective strategies to increase the sustainability of products originating from developing countries in a wageworker context. This study indicates that Fairtrade certification has a potential contribution to improving the situation of wageworkers in such chains. However, the effects depend not only on the type of benefit but also on the institutional context. Bottom-up empowerment may be a necessity to change norms of conduct and guarantee a true impact on labour conditions on the long term. Benefits of (Fairtrade) certification, but also other interventions with a similar purpose, might therefore not be discerned in terms of primary benefits such as wages or
basic labour conditions that are under direct control of (inter)national law, but they should be identified
in terms of secondary benefits (e.g. access to and satisfaction to sanitation, healthcare etc.) especially in
terms of improved norms of conduct for wageworker empowerment (i.e. tertiary effects or benefits). The
focus of Fairtrade on empowerment is clear in its the revised labour strategy. The study also illustrated
the importance of context: formal institutions (national and international laws – formal institutions)
differ by country as do norms of conduct (informal institutions). An instrument such as certification
might have more scope for impact in an environment with weak formal institutions and/or perverse
norms of conduct, but also less chance to succeed on the long term because it is not aligned with existing
culture (which seems to be the argument in the literature I referred to before)). Both topics require
further in-depth research.
# Fair deal or ordeal? Enquiry into the sustainability of commercial banana production in the Lao PDR<fnref n="1" />

Vongpaphane Manivong<fnref n="2" />, Sengphachanh Sonethavixay<fnref n="1" />,
Piya Wongpit<fnref n="3" /> and Isabelle Vagneron<fnref n="4" />

## Introduction

Since the launching of the New Economic Mechanism in the late 1980s, the government of the Lao PDR has been promoting commercial agriculture through the promotion of contract farming and foreign direct investment (FDI). Lao agriculture sector has relatively small and inexperienced agribusiness enterprises. With large areas of fallow land, and a lowly productive agriculture still dominated by smallholder subsistence farming, the Lao PDR has also been targeted by agribusiness investors from neighboring countries (e.g., Vietnam, Thailand, China) seeking free agriculture land. The very rapid expansion of commercial banana production since 2005 takes place within this context. In 2014, banana production covered a total area of 22,920 ha, while banana exports reached 260,000 tons representing a total value of 45 million US$. 88% of the bananas exported were sent to China, while the remaining 12% were exported to Thailand. However, Lao bananas were not identifiable on global and regional markets as most banana exports were informal (they came with no certificate of origin or phytosanitary certification). While several local varieties of bananas (kluay nam) are cultivated using traditional farming methods and consumed within the country, Cavendish bananas are mainly grown using non-traditional farming techniques (i.e., on larger surfaces, using chemical inputs and wage work), and mainly commercialized abroad.

The main objective of this research is to better understand the drivers, pathways and impacts of change (at the level of both rural communities and production basins) of the expansion of commercial banana production in Northern Laos. Our main hypothesis is that a better understanding of the social and economic forces at work behind the current expansion of banana production is crucial to help both local communities and government agencies develop alternative pathways for sustainable development. Such alternatives may take the form of more sustainable banana production systems or the identification of more suitable (in economic and environmental terms) crops. From a government perspective, this research could help fine-tune policy options to ensure that commercial banana production benefits all stakeholders (i.e. from the investors to the workers).

## Rationale and implications

In the absence of any systematic information on commercial banana production in small, medium and large plantations in the Lao PDR, it is necessary to describe carefully the different production arrangements (e.g., land concession, land leasing, contract farming) developed in the context of global, regional, and domestic markets for bananas and processed banana products. It is also important to evaluate the social, economic and environmental impacts of commercial banana production and to develop practical measures to mitigate those impacts. Indeed, despite immediate economic gains, some of the business models developed for commercial banana production might be more harmful than beneficial to rural communities, as well as detrimental to local land-based resources.

Moreover, it is essential to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders involved: 1/ at the government level, a proper regulatory framework and adapted procedures are necessary to improve the management of foreign investment. Namely, there is a need for improved standards/criteria to help

<footnote n="1">1. Lao People's Democratic Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. NAFRI, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. National University of Laos, Faculty of Economics and Business Management, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. CIRAD, UMR MOISA, F-34060 Montpellier, France.</footnote>
select FDIs in the agricultural sector, keeping in mind the need to establish fruitful partnerships between the government and responsible investors. Such standards should not consider only the financial return on investment, but also the expected social and environmental impacts on local communities; 2/ at the investors' level, practical and cost-effective production and field management measures are needed to mitigate the socioeconomic, environmental, and agro-ecological impacts of commercial banana production. Practical and financially feasible mitigation measures are also needed to compensate for negative socio-economic, environmental, and agro-ecological impacts of commercial banana production on agriculture land concessions and land leased from smallholder farmers.

## Materials and methods

A mixed method approach was used for data collection and analysis. Field observations were made by the researchers during the visits of various types of banana plantations in five provinces of the Lao PDR (Luang Namtha, Oudomxay, Phongsali, Salavane and Bolikhamxay). Qualitative surveys (semi-structured and groups interviews) were also carried out with key stakeholders (government officers at the provincial and district levels, plantation owners, smallholder farmers, etc.) to understand the perceptions, practices, and future plans for banana production. Finally, a quantitative survey was carried out with: farmers who leased their land to banana plantations, independent banana farmers and workers employed on banana plantations. This survey aimed to assess the economic returns to banana production and farmers'/workers' knowledge and perception of issues related to the use of chemicals on the plantation.

## Main results and findings

The recent development of banana production in the Lao PDR can be explained by pull factors in the Lao PDR (e.g., appropriate conditions of production such as good weather and fertile soil, the low price of land and low labor costs); and push factors in China (e.g., strict measures in favor of clean production, higher production costs, pests and diseases, decline in soil fertility in banana production areas). These conditions brought investors to look for new production areas to reduce production risks and to increase their profits.

The Lao PDR offers unscrupulous investors a favorable environment for banana production that combines poor law enforcement, porous borders and vulnerable workers at the mercy of unscrupulous employers. Namely, the survey reveals a very heavy use of chemical substances in commercial banana plantations. Herbicides, fertilizers, nutrients, insecticides, and additives were used throughout the production process (around 40 times/production cycle). Between 105 and 140 different chemical substances were applied, sometimes mixed and sprayed together, thereby increasing their degree of harm. Farmers knew little about how those substances should be handled and used. Very few were able to read the labels on the containers, as they were often written in Chinese. Farmers rarely followed appropriate practices regarding the use of protective equipment when spraying, or safe spraying methods. Finally, there was no proper management of chemical containers after usage.

We also compare the economic returns associated with different business models and show that benefits from short-term land lease fees were higher than those of long-term concessions. Although land concessions provided lower benefits, they were easier to regulate, manage and control. On the other hand, banana production also meant lost opportunities in land use for other crops and increased the price of other crops, especially rice. Banana production required heavy investments in infrastructure (road, water system) and an intensive use of inputs (fertilizers, water), which pushed up production costs. Companies invested in infrastructure (e.g., road access, electricity, health centers) and sometimes contributed to social activities at the village/district level (e.g. to support meeting, social events, etc.).

Finally, a survey of those employed on the banana plantations revealed that these workers were from very poor and vulnerable communities (ethnic minorities). In terms of health, 8% of the banana farmers/families in the North reported having been sick over the past six months. On average, banana workers
had been sick four times over the past six months (four days each time) but could continue to work normally. At the household level, increased expenditures for health care and the environment (the value of which is difficult to assess may outweigh the benefits of being employed in a plantation (e.g. employment opportunities, incomes). Finally, as those employed on the banana plantations belonged to poor communities living in vulnerable areas, they were especially at risk due to their low level of education and poor knowledge regarding the safe use of chemicals. Finally, children were also at risk as they would rather stay with their parents on the plantation than go to school, which posed further threats to their health.

## Conclusion

Despite benefits in terms of income generation, employment opportunities or fiscal revenues, the impact of banana plantations on the environment and the health (of plantation workers and consumers) due to the intensive use of chemicals is potentially very high. In the Lao PDR, laws and regulations existed but were not enforced, especially the processes for approving investment in banana production, and for monitoring and evaluating banana production. There was no systematic coordination between the various agencies in charge of overseeing such investment at the central (ministry) and local (provincial and district authorities) levels. This study concludes by proposing concrete measures to better monitor foreign investment in the banana sector.
# Evaluation of the FSC forest certification scheme in Brazil: a three level approach

Stéphane Guéneau<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> and Marcelo Carneiro<fnref n="2" />

## Introduction

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international non-governmental organization, was created in 1993 in response to concerns over global deforestation. It is considered to be a pioneer of Voluntary Sustainability Standards and its forest certification scheme is one of the most important schemes implemented in the tropics. FSC emerged to counter the lack of legally binding international instruments on forests and the shortcomings of public forest policies (Humphreys, 2006) and as such has been recognized as a private forest regime (Espach, 2009; Pattberg, 2005). It can also be viewed as a component of an international environmental regime (Tikina and Innes, 2008).

The lack of evidence on the overall impact of FSC certification has led to intense debates among scientists and between different stakeholders involved in public action on tropical forests. Some government agencies and NGOs believe that FSC has a positive impact on conservation (Burger et al., 2005; WWF, 2010). But others, including some NGOs involved in the creation of FSC, are much more circumspect or critical about the social and environmental performance of this scheme (Counsell and Loraas, 2002; Sahlin, 2013). Therefore, some civil society organizations, foundations, private companies and government agencies have begun to wonder if their investments in supporting FSC activities are worthwhile (Cashore and Vanderbergh, 2010). In view of these debates, it seems important and relevant to assess FSC's true impact.

After a critical analysis of the methods undertaken so far to evaluate the FSC impacts, the paper lays the foundation of the three levels framework we propose for evaluating FSC's effectiveness framework, and shows some results of its application in the Brazilian context.

## Methodology

The methodology we used rely on our participant observations as members of the FSC entities and consultancies. We have also conducted a field research in a natural forest area in the Pará State in Brasil (Santarem region). The fieldwork was supplemented by a series of semistructured interviews with key players involved, at the Federal and local level, in the development and implementation of forest policies and certification in Brazil. Finally, the methodology was complemented by an extensive literature review of the evaluation of the forest certification schemes.

## Assessing the effectiveness of forest certification schemes: a critical review

Recent studies have taken stock of what we know and what we don't know about the assessment of forest certifications (Cashore and Auld, 2012; Romero and Castrén 2013; van Kuijk et al., 2009). These surveys reveal the difficulties in assessing the overall environmental impact of FSC or, in other words, the extent to which FSC contributes to alleviating the problems it addresses (Gulbrandsen, 2010; Visseren-Hamakers and Pattberg, 2013).

At the micro-scale, many of the existing evaluation studies have chosen to assess the effectiveness of certification schemes using a counterfactual. This remains a huge challenge because the evaluation must be based on a credible counterfactual, a configuration that is rarely observed in reality (Blackman and Rivera, 2010). For this reason, a lot of research are not based on indicators of impacts, a dimension that weakens the findings of evaluations. Despite these difficulties, the studies that have applied this meth-

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR MOISA, F- 34398 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Federal University of Maranhão, Brazil.</footnote>
odology generally show that environmental management is more effective in certified forests than in non-certified ones. For instance, in Brazil, a study was conducted in a community forests in Acre State through a survey of local perceptions regarding a series of parameters such as the signs of forest degradation (deforestation, forest fires, game hunting, etc.) and the local people's environmental awareness (waste storage, knowledge of regulatory measures, etc.). The study reveals that 87% of the certified communities' members said they implement wildlife protection measures – such as not hunting with dogs, catching game only for their local consumption, respecting a hunting calendar, and preserving trees that provide food for wild animals –, whereas only 44% of the non-certified control group members said they took such measures. (de Lima *et al.*, 2008).

Approaches comparing situations before and after obtaining certification clearly reveal the improvements resulting from certification. This methodology is generally based on the analysis of the corrective action requests (CARs) issued by third-party certifying bodies. (Blackman *et al.*, 2014; Cubbage *et al.*, 2010). However, these assessments do not prove that the FSC standards actually refer to a “solving problems” goal. They only indicate that the operator complies with a certain standard of certification, which itself only reflects a compromise between different and sometimes incompatible interests (van Kuijk *et al.*, 2009). Moreover, several authors stress the fact that standards are vague and subject to interpretation, which results in the implementation of insufficiently stringent heterogeneous management measures (Elbakidze *et al.*, 2011; Schulze *et al.*, 2008).

## The first level: defining a focal point

For the evaluation to be truly relevant, it must measure the gap between the present state of affairs and the situation that should be achieved in order to solve the environmental problem that justified the creation of the scheme. We have applied a strategic environmental management analysis approach (Mermet *et al.*, 2010) in order to “transcode” various information (scientific papers, societal demands, international commitments, etc.) into a benchmark that includes four major management objectives (Guéneau, 2011): avoiding large-scale conversion of natural forests, conserving key natural forest habitats, restoring the forest ecosystem and maintaining the ecosystem functions of production forests.

We have analyzed whether the FSC-Brazil standards are consistent or inconsistent with this benchmark. Our results show that the Brazilian standards for Amazonian forests include additional criteria that are intended to fill gaps in the Brazilian legal framework as it applies to the Amazon, especially with regard to illegal logging and the status of forest communities. However, the full implementation of these standards remains contested, as many socio-environmental conflict have been observed. The Brazilian standard for plantation forests reflect a more business-oriented vision as it has evolved in a direction that allows companies to convert some natural areas into plantations, although it is limited.

## The second level: assessing indirect impacts at the landscape level

To demonstrate the effectiveness of certification schemes, it will be necessary to assess to what extent the strengthening of environmental management measures in the certified forest unit may lead to the shifting of harmful activities to adjacent areas. At the landscape level, it is also relevant to assess whether the certified company deals with the impacts caused by log transportation from the concession to the industry. In the Pará State, several conflicts between traditional communities and logging companies have been notified regarding the wood trucks impacts in the villages or in the areas of traditional activities. Finally, the evaluation at the landscape level has to deal with the social transformations induced by the logging activities. For instance, the new forest roads can bring in new farmers to forest areas that were hitherto relatively undisturbed.

Some FSC-certified companies in Amazonia have to face several challenges regarding the legalization of land tenure and land procurement by new migrants. In the case of Brazilian certified forest plantation, the risk of social and environmental impacts caused by a large quantity of workers from various Brazilian states can't be neglected.
## The third stage: policy implications

Forest certification can have policy and institutional implications for other processes that may help solve the problem or, on the contrary, worsen it, irrespective of the effects observed in the field, on the forest certified unit and on its immediate environment (Auld *et al.*, 2008). One of the key points that any assessment must be able to determine is to what extent FSC certification acts as a vector of social transformation, or on the contrary, whether it is a “green marketing” instrument in line with the neoliberal governmentality principle.

Although some FSC supporters have used their positions in the Federal government to implement forest policy reforms in Brazil, the FSC has not succeeded in transforming the forest sector and promoting the emergence of forest management alternatives. The number of forest communities that have obtained a forest management certification is dramatically low, and these communities have many difficulties to comply with FSC standards.

## Conclusion

A lot of studies conducted at the micro-level showed the positive effects of certification, including in Brazil (Basso *et al.*, 2011; de Lima *et al.*, 2009). The application of the three level framework evaluation of the FSC in Brazil reveals that the technocratic and optimistic vision of the FSC improvements on the ground, that rely on the stringency and the rigorous implementation of standards at the management unit scale, can be counterbalanced by negative environmental, social and policy effects on a wider scale. These findings suggest rethinking the research on the impacts of forest certification that focus primarily on the end of the policy cycle, by integrating the analysis of the construction of the standards in any evaluation methodologies.

## References

* Auld G., Gulbrandsen L.H., McDermott C.L. (2008) Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33, 187-211.

* Basso V.M., Jacovine L.A.G., Alves R.R., Vieira S.L.P. (2011) Influência da certificação florestal no cumprimento da legislação ambiental e trabalhista na região amazônica. Acta Amazonica 41, 69-76.

* Blackman A., Raimondi A., Cubbage F. (2014) Does Forest Certification in Developing Countries Have Environmental Benefits? Insights from Mexican Corrective Action Requests. Insights from Mexican Corrective Action Requests (March 31, 2014). Resources for the Future Discussion Paper.

* Blackman A., Rivera J. (2010) The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts of ‘sustainable’ certification. RFF Discussion Paper.

* Burger D., Hess J., Lang B., (2005) Forest Certification: An innovative instrument in the service of sustainable development? Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany.

* Cashore B., Auld G., (2012) Forestry Review, in: Toward Sustainability: the Roles and Limitations of Certification. Resolve, Washington (D.C.), pp. A-88 – A-124.

* Cashore B., Vanderbergh M., (2010) Exploring the impacts of certification systems, in: Sheil, D., Putz, F.E.Z., Roderick J. (Eds.), Biodiversity conservation in certified forests, p. 137.

* Counsell S., Loraas K.T., (2002) Trading in credibility: the myth and reality of the Forest Stewardship Council. Rainforest Foundation UK, p. 159.

* Cubbage, F., Diaz, D., Yapura, P., Dube, F. (2010) Impacts of forest management certification in Argentina and Chile. Forest Policy and Economics 12, 497-504.

* de Lima A.C.B., Keppe A.L.N., Alves M.C., Maule R.F., Sparovek G., (2008) Impacto da certificação florestal FSC em comunidades agroextrativistas do Acre. Piracicaba: Imaflora.
de Lima A.C.B., Keppe A.L.N., Maule F.E., Sparovek G., Alves M.C., Maule R.F., (2009) Does certification make a difference? Impact assessment study on FSC/SAN certification in Brazil. Imaflora., Piracicaba, SP, Brazil, p. 96.

Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Andersson K., Nordberg M., Pautov Y. (2011) How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia. Forest Ecology and Management 262, 1983-1995.

Espach R.H. (2009) Private environmental regimes in developing countries: globally sown, locally grown. Palgrave Macmillan.

Guéneau S., (2011) Vers une évaluation des dispositifs de gestion des forêts tropicales humides. AgroParisTech, Paris, p. 580.

Gulbrandsen L.H. (2010) Transnational environmental governance: the emergence and effects of the certification of forests and fisheries. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Mermet L., Billé R., Leroy M. (2010) Concern-Focused Evaluation for Ambiguous and Conflicting Policies: An Approach From the Environmental Field. American Journal of Evaluation 31, 180-198.

Pattberg P. (2005) The institutionalization of private governance: how business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules. Governance 18, 589-610.

Romero C., Castrén T., (2013) Approaches to Measuring the Conservation Impact of Forest Management Certification., Program on Forests (PROFOR). World Bank Washington D.C.

Sahlin M., (2013) Credibility at stake–how FSC Sweden fails to safeguard forest biodiversity. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

Schulze M., Grogan J., Vidal E. (2008) Forest certification in Amazonia: standards matter. Oryx 42, 229-239.

van Kuijk M., Putz F.E., Zagt R.J., (2009) Effects of forest certification on biodiversity. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Visseren-Hamakers I.J., Pattberg P. (2013) We can't see the forest for the trees: The environmental impact of global forest certification is unknown. GAIA 22, 25-28.

WWF (2010) WWF Position Paper on Forest Certification, October 2007, updated April 2010.
# Smallholders and the inclusion debates in certification schemes: perspectives from palm oil certification in Thailand and Malaysia.

Marcel Djama<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Shaufique Ahmad Sidique<fnref n="2" />, Tey Sheng<fnref n="2" /> and Patchaya Songsiengchai<fnref n="2" />

## Introduction

Nowadays, voluntary sustainability standards that aim to implement “good environmental and social practices” in agri-supply chains are no longer regarded as a marginal phenomenon but as a significant component in the governance of global values chains. For a growing number of academics, these standards are considered as the main institutional innovations of recent years. [Bartley, 2007; Cashore, 2002; Pattberg, 2007].

Indeed, long confined to the realm of the responsibility of public authorities or professional bodies, the definition of “good practice” is now increasingly based on partnership between private operators, namely stakeholders within the supply chain (farmers, processors, traders) and beyond the supply chain (NGOs, bankers or investors...).

The development of voluntary standards has contributed to frame a rising market of sustainability management, bringing up new managerial skills and economic players (consultants firms, social and environmental auditors, certification firms, etc.). In some cases, it has also accelerated the transformation of NGOs or social enterprises from non-profit advocacy actions to market oriented services delivery entity [Roberts & al., 2005].

This paper addresses one component of this sustainability market by focusing on the technical assistance to support the certification process of independent palm oil smallholders in Thailand and Malaysia.

Driven by growing demand, the expansion of palm oil has generated positive economic benefits in producing countries while causing at the same time negative environmental and social impacts.

Voluntary standards-setting and certification initiatives emerged to address these sustainability issues, the first and most widespread initiative being the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Operational since 2004, RSPO certified oil palm represents today 17% of the global palm oil [RSPO Website, accessed August 2016].

Until now RSPO certification has almost exclusively targeted large scale production units. But smallholders’ certification is becoming a priority.

Three million of farmers worldwide fall into the category of smallholders as defined by RSPO (family farming area less than 50ha). They produce 40% of the World palm oil.

Environmental and social impacts of farming are among the key issues of this renewed interest for smallholders alongside with the assumption that better farming practices will increase yields and income. But smallholder certification has also a legitimizing dimension for RSPO as it aims to promote an inclusive value chain.

Based on surveys assessing pilot smallholders RSPO certification projects in Malaysia and in Thailand, this paper aims at analyzing the political dimension of technical assistance provided to farmers. Our

<footnote n="1">1. CIRAD, UMR MOISA, F-34060 Montpellier, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.</footnote>
focus is on the underlying political rationalities of the projects, the operation of the technical assistance conceived as technologies governing economic and social space, and finally, the local reception of the projects by farmers.

## Methodology

Four RSPO smallholders' certification schemes have been analyzed.

In Thailand two schemes previously initiated and supported by the German cooperation (GIZ) located in the southern provinces of Krabi and Surat Thani. 80 semi-structured interviews were carried out (40 in each province) with certified farmers. These interviews were complemented by 26 others with technical assistance staff to certified farmers, and public extension services officers, millers, ramp owners and government officers.

In Malaysia we analyzed two certification pilots projects located in Sarawak and Sabah states of East Malaysia.

In Sarawak, 76 semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers, “longhouse” head of families, extension officers, millers and consultants assisting farmers.

In Sabah, 100 semi-structured interviews have been carried out with the same stakeholders.

Before and during the field surveys, we reviewed the literature produced by or on the various projects.

## Results

Independent smallholders' certification projects are contributing to the privatization of agricultural extension services.

In Thailand, the smallholder certification pilot program supported by the GIZ, was designed to achieve compliance of the certified palm oil with the sustainability criteria applicable to biofuel sector in Europe.

The Malaysian pilots' projects were initiated by mills owned by large companies (Wilmar and PPB Palm Oil Berhad).

However, the implementation of private technical assistance is carried out in different institutional contexts.

In Thailand, although government agricultural extension services are operating, they provide little support to farmers on the ground. Certification pathways are demanding for the implementation of “the best management practices” prescribed by the standard, and require technical and managerial skills among others. Many smallholders are newcomers in the oil palm farming that has followed government incentives to agricultural conversion. For these farmers, access to competent and available technical assistance, remains the main motivation for their involvement in the certification program.

Compare to Thailand, palm oil farming extension services are far more organized and provided by public bodies, but these bodies do not support on the ground the implementation of the RSPO. This is how independent smallholder certification programs have opened a market for specialized private operators

Our surveys show also the vision of farmers organization conveyed by certification.

Compliance to the standard is challenging for independent smallholders as they have to create group certification to be eligible. But group certification refers in that case to a market-oriented conceptualization of farmers' empowerment, focusing on economic functions to minimize certification cost and improve internal control. Not only is this approach to farmers' organization not based on existing solidarity but it may endanger the rise of new solidarities.

However, although key discursive elements of neoliberal governance and attempts to forge behaviors for the market are at the heart of smallholders' certification technical assistance project, our survey highlights also how such a project are redefine by smallholders.
References

Bartley T. 2007. "Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: the rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions". American Journal of Sociology, vol. 113, (2): 297-351.

Cashore B., 2002. "Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how nonstate market driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority". Governance, vol. 15, (4): 503-529.

Pattberg P. 2007. Private Institutions and Global Governance: The New Politics of Environmental Sustainability. Cheltenham (UK), Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar.

Roberts S.M., Jones J.P., Fröhling. 2005. "NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: a research framework". World Development 33 (11): 1845-1864.
# Fair trade for all on smallholder farmers and farmworkers

Martha Lilia Del Rio Duque<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />

## Introduction

In 2011, Fair trade USA has parted ways from Fairtrade International, which had organized Fairtrade (FT) into a single global system up until that moment (Raynolds 2012b). This decision rooted on the desire to integrate coffee estates and independent smallholders in the FT system, through an extension of the original certification scheme, known as Fairtrade for all (FT4ALL). The aim is to serve also farm workers who do not own land and independent famers who are not organized into cooperatives or associations. The standard is based on four principles which aim to increase (1) empowerment and (2) economic development and to ensure (3) social responsibility and (4) environmental stewardship (Fair Trade Certified, 2015).

Fair Trade USA's model works to bring the benefits of Fair Trade to workers, farmers and communities across the world, allowing them to participate in international markets in ways that are fair and equitable today as well as to help them to progress and acquire greater business capacity over time. These principles are in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) of ending poverty and hunger, protecting human rights and empowering women that the United Nations aim to reach by 2030.

As a response, several intervention programs in the agricultural sector are focusing not only on improving the level of productivity, but also on finding tools to reduce extreme poverty. In such a context, food standards represent a good example of how SDG could be attained. Several strategies could be adopted to pave the way for the reduction of poverty and for a sustainable development. Among all, it is essential to provide facilitation of access to basic services and to the labour market and to prepare the ground for the improvement of income and well-being (Andrade, 2010).

## Relation between food standards and the improvement of workers and smallholder producers' livelihood.

The use of food standards and certification schemes as a mean to overcome poverty had strong influence on the rural policies of several countries. For this reason, nowadays there is a growing interest in understanding the effectiveness of certification schemes, which promote increasing welfare for certified producers and higher level of environmental sustainability. In rich and emerging economics, consumers are willing to pay higher prices for coffee, cacao and other agricultural products which own a certification which guarantees the sustainability of the production process, as they see it as a way to contribute to the improvement of producers and workers' livelihood (Chiputwa, et al., 2015).

However, the impact of food standards and certification schemes on the welfare of rural workers has been widely discussed and is still subject of an ongoing debate. Indeed, the effects of certifications are not generalizable and could be either positive or negative (Hansen & Trifkovíc, 2014). For example, Méndez et al. (2010) provide an explanation of why the positive impact of these certification schemes might be limited. In their opinion, while the higher prices supplied by the certifications leads to an increase of the gross income received by farmworkers and producers, the quantity of coffee sold under the certification is low. Therefore, only part of the coffee produced is sold at the price of the certification, limiting the beneficial effects that it might have on farmers' welfare. Moreover, Reardon et al. (2009)

<footnote n="1">1. Stefania Sellitti, Italy.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Carolina Gonzalez, Colombia.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. Marc Lundy, USA.</footnote>
brought into light the problem of the high costs that producers have to bear, in order to comply with certain requirements and security standards to obtain the certification. As a result, the poorest producers might not be able to satisfy the prerequisites of quality, consistency, volume of coffee, etc. and risk selling in less profitable markets and become further marginalized.

## Methodology

In this paper, we analysed the economic and social situation of independent smallholder farmers in Honduras and of workers of estates in Nicaragua and Brazil. In particular, we explored the production of coffee, as it represents one the most important crop in each of the three countries both in terms of level of exports and of number of people employed in the sector. In fact, coffee is the fourth most exported product in Nicaragua, the first in Honduras and the seventh in Brazil (United Nations, 2015). Moreover, the proportion of people employed in coffee production is between 20% and 40% of total rural labour force in Nicaragua (Vakis, Kruger, & Mason, 2004) and 5,8% in Brazil. In the case of Honduras 1 out of 10 workers is employed in the coffee sector (World Bank Group, 2015).

Our main question is how coffee certification schemes can be used as an instrument to contribute to the accomplishment of two of the sustainable development goals: *No Poverty and Zero hunger*. To address our study we conducted surveys in each country, 550 in Nicaragua, 625 in Brasil and 506 in Honduras. In particular, we interviewed 199 households working in certified estates in Nicaragua and 351 households working in not certified estates. In Brasil we conducted 425 surveys in certified farms and 200 in not certified farms. Finally, in Honduras we interviewed 111 households in certified farms and 395 in not certified.

To find an answer, we conducted a cluster analysis to evaluate the different situation of smallholder farmers and farm workers with and without Fairtrade certification. The cluster analysis aims to provide objective and stable classifications. Objective in the sense that the analysis of the same data using the same sequence of numerical methods produces the same classification; stable means that the classification remains the same under a wide variety of additions of new characteristics describing them (Everitt, et al., 2011). To grasp poverty impact, we included in our study economic variables, such as income generated through activities related to coffee, other income coming from other agricultural activities and income generated through activities not related to agriculture. Besides, we analysed the probability of being under the poverty line, by using an indicator created by the Grameen Foundation, the *Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI)*.

Furthermore, we used the *Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale* (Escala Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria, ELCSA), which is an indicator used to diagnose and monitor hunger and food insecurity inside the region. This instrument is one of the qualitative methods used nowadays to detect hunger and built on the basis of households' experience of food insecurity (Ballard, Kepple, & Cafiero, 2013 and FAO, 2012). In this work, we will focus on the effects of FT certification on the workers of estates in Nicaragua and Brazil and on smallholder farmers in Honduras.

## Expected results and policy implications

With our work, we give a relevant contribution to the existing literature about FT, by studying for the first time FT4ALL. In particular, we expect to discover if a relation between poverty level, food security and FT4ALL occurs. Through the analysis of groups with similar characteristics, we want to explore whether FT certified workers and producers perform better in the PPI and ELCSA indicators, compared to those who were not certified in the past three years.

From the data we collected, it results that in Nicaragua the percentage of people living below the poverty line is on average 49% in the certified farm, 52% in the farm with any certification and 49% in the farms with certifications different from FT. As for the ELSCA indicator, on average 16% of the worker in certified farms experience food security, while values in farms without certification of with other certifications are respectively equal to 11% and 25%
The situation appears to be better for Brazilian workers. The probability of being under the poverty line is on average 18.2% for workers in the certified estates with full investment of the FT premium, 15.1% in the certified estates with less investment of the premium and 20.4% in estates without certifications. On average 77.5% of workers both in the certified and not certified farms experience food security, while this value is lower for farms with less investment of the FT premium and equal to 69.1%.

Finally, in Honduras the average probability of being under the poverty line is 55.4% in certified farms and 62.8% in not certified farms, while the ELSCA indicator reveals that on average 46.9% of people in certified farms have food security, while this percentage drops to 23.6% in farms without certification.

Promoting sustainable livelihoods in coffee states and independent smallholder producers remains challenging. Through this study, we want to assess whether coffee certification schemes represent a valid tool to overcome poverty and hunger and whether it is worth to promote this kind of interventions.

## Bibliography

Ballard T. J., Kepple A. W., & Cafiero C. (2013). *The Food Insecurity Experience Scale: Development of a Global Standard for Monitoring Hunger Worldwide*. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/voh/FIES Technical Paper v1.1.pdf

Barham B. L., & Weber J. G. (2012). The Economic Sustainability of Certified Coffee: Recent Evidence from Mexico and Peru. *World Development, 40* (6), 1269–1279. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.20

Chiputwa B., Spielman D. J., & Qaim M. (2015). Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee Farmers in Uganda. *World Development, 66*, 400–412. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09

Everitt B. S., Landau S., Leese M., & Stahl D. (2011). *Cluster Analysis*. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470977811

Fair Trade Certified (2015). *Standards Development and Revision Policy*. Retrieved from http://fair-tradeusa.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/filemanager/standards/FTUSA StandardsDevelopmentPo

FAO (2012). *Escala Latinoamericana y Caribe de seguridad alimentaria (ELCSA): Manual de uso y aplicaciones*. (Comité Científico de la ELCSA, Ed.). Roma. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3065s.pdf

Hansen H., & Trifkovíc N. (2014). Food Standards are Good – For Middle-Class Farmers. *World Development, 56*, 226–242. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.10.027

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE (2012). *Censo Agropecuario 2006: Brasil, Grandes Regiões e Unidades da Federação. Segunda apuração*. Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Censos/Censo Agropecuario 2006/Segunda Apuração/censoagro2006 2aapuracao.pdf.

Méndez V. E., Bacon C. M., Olson M., Petchers S., Herrador D., Carranza C., ... Mendoza A. (2010). Effects of Fair Trade and organic certifications on small-scale coffee farmer households in Central America and Mexico. *Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25* (03), 236–251. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000268

Reardon T., Barrett C. B., Berdegué J. A., & Swinnen J. F. M. (2009). Agrifood Industry Transformation and Small Farmers in Developing Countries. *World Development, 37* (11), 1717–1727. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08.023

United Nations (2015). *General Assembly* (Vol. 15). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view doc.a

Vakis R., Kruger D., & Mason A. D. (2004). *Shocks and Coffee: Lessons from Nicaragua*. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Social-Risk-Management-DP/0415.pdf

World Bank Group (2015). *Honduras Economic DNA: With a Special Focus Section on Poverty and Shared Prosperity*. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/150731468189533027/pdf WP-PUBLIC-Box391473B-Honduras-Economic-DNA-First-Edition-11Jun2015-FINAL-PUBLIC.pdf
Session 7

*Institutional innovations for sustainable food systems: practitioner experiences in 'transitions in the making'*
# Developing a biocultural heritage indication labeling system

Krystyna Swiderska<fnref n="1" />

This presentation is proposed for the session on “Institutional innovations for sustainable food systems: practitioner experiences in ‘transitions in the making’” organized by FAO, INRA, IFOAM, URGENCI, IIED and CCAP. The session has been approved. The presentation falls under the theme of “Institutional innovations for and with indigenous and ethnic communities”. The session focuses on SDG 12 on sustainable production and consumption, and this presentation also focuses on the SDG 2 target on maintaining genetic diversity, and SDG 1 on ending poverty and building resilience.

Krystyna will introduce the concept of multi-actor innovation platforms involving indigenous communities and specifically a Biocultural Heritage Indication for indigenous and traditional products that IIED is developing with partners. Many indigenous farming communities still sustain traditional agroecological production systems which conserve much of the world's remaining food crop diversity in the field, where it can continue to evolve for climate adaptation, unlike genetic resources in gene banks. Yet these sustainable, biodiverse production systems are facing a number of threats – including economic pressures leading to adoption of intensive farming and out-migration from rural areas. At the same time, markets for organically produced food are growing, along with awareness of the importance of biological and cultural diversity. Developing value added products and services from unique biological and cultural diversity – such as traditional foods and drinks, personal care products, crafts and landscape tourism – provides a means of enhancing the economic viability of indigenous production systems. Tourists and local people with disposal income are often willing to pay a premium for high quality local products provided they carry a guarantee of origin and authenticity. But such guarantees are often lacking.

While labeling and certification schemes exist for ecological and fair trade products, it seems that there is no such scheme that specifically seeks to protect products derived from biological and cultural diversity. Existing intellectual property tools such as collective trademarks and geographical indications could be used to protect collective rights over biocultural products, but they have proved difficult for indigenous peoples to access and have not always benefited indigenous producers or biodiversity.

IIED, the University of Leeds and Asociacion ANDES (Peru) have therefore initiated a process to design a new labelling or ‘Biocultural Heritage<fnref n="2" /> (BCH) Indication’ scheme for biocultural heritage-based products, which aims to be easily and widely accessible to indigenous peoples. The indication will seek a culturally appropriate approach to marketing that harnesses goodwill towards indigenous peoples and their “traditional lifestyles”. Well-made local goods that are trusted as being authentic or are imbued with positive associations are likely to attract good prices and decent revenues can flow from the sale of quite small volumes.

The proposed Biocultural Heritage Indication (BCHI) will build on the basic idea of a geographical ‘indication’ which links a product to a particular territory and production process. The aim of the scheme will be to ensure that as much of the market value as possible is captured locally. Arguably, the best way to do this is to focus mainly on trading locally. The idea of “full benefit capture” is that producer communities should seek to take full control of the benefits by localising product value chains to the greatest extent. In other words, as much as possible of the sourcing of ingredients, cultivation, production, distribution, marketing and sale should be done and controlled locally without the use of intermediaries to ensure that most of the income generated stays with the communities.

<footnote n="1">1. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) - United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Biocultural Heritage is the interlinked traditional knowledge, biodiversity, landscapes, cultural and spiritual values of indigenous and local communities - it reflects the holistic indigenous worldview and underpins the continuity of traditional production systems.</footnote>
## Experience with existing IPRs and indigenous labelling

The Association of Potato Park communities in Peru tried to register a Potato Park Collective Trademark but was unable to do so, because of the bureaucratic requirements (Argumedo, 2013). The name of the Potato Park representative on the statutes of association changed as a community withdrew from the Association, but the statutes of association could be changed within the 60 days required to complete the application, so the application was rejected. Indigenous applicants also face difficulties due to their often remote rural location, language barriers, and the need to register each product separately. Experience with Geographical Indications in India also indicates that GIs are often difficult and costly for indigenous peoples to acquire and enforce and that they have generated few revenues for indigenous producers.

However, the Potato Park has used its collective trademark informally since 2005 for products and services such as herbal teas, potato shampoo, creams, traditional weaving and eco-tourism. A survey in 2010 found that the collective mark has brought tangible monetary benefits – both higher prices and increased sales, and has helped to build the reputation of the Park and attract visitors. Use of the trademark also strengthened collective identity and pride in the Potato Park, and hence social cohesion for the management of biodiversity and landscapes. Other experiences with indigenous labeling have also shown promise. Early experience with the Maori Organics food label in New Zealand suggests that indigenous labelling based on self-regulation can contribute to economic, environmental and cultural goals, and promote access to foreign as well as domestic markets.

## Key design questions to be addressed

The Biocultural Heritage Indication will be a graphical sign containing the term 'Biocultural Heritage', accompanied by the name of the relevant indigenous group, community or territory, and could be used alongside existing indigenous labels, to provide an independent guarantee. It will allow indigenous peoples to define the criteria for use of the label themselves, based on customary laws, with emphasis on self-evaluation and local monitoring. However, some independent oversight will be required to ensure compliance. This could be based on a set of biocultural heritage indicators developed by indigenous peoples.

A number of design questions will need to be addressed. Should the scheme be a label or a certification? While certification gives firmer guarantees for consumers, complying with detailed requirements is likely to be burdensome for small organisations, especially for a range of products. Labelling may be more appropriate in this case, as it places more responsibility on the producers to ensure compliance, although some independent oversight will still be needed.

Should the label be trademark protected? A collective trademark can be owned by a legally registered community-based organisation. This would provide stronger protection against unauthorised copying or sale of products through trademark infringement remedies, but trademarks would need to be acquired in each country where indigenous communities use the indication and renewed at least every seven years.

Which organisation should manage, monitor and review the scheme? Of key importance is that indigenous people are directly involved in running the scheme and feel that it is their scheme rather than one imposed by others. It could be an indigenous organisation or one which is trusted by indigenous peoples or which directly involves them (e.g. on a steering committee or board). The scheme must be institutionally sustainable: in other words, it should not be overly dependent on the active engagement of a small number of individuals working in a personal or voluntary capacity. It would also need to be financially stable, requiring continuous financial support to allow for monitoring, evaluation and review, site visits and field research.

What would the organisation do? It could provide independent monitoring of the Indication to ensure it supports biocultural heritage, manage payment of renewal fees (to keep registered trademarks in force), assess the impacts and effectiveness of the label, and monitor markets including preventing improper
assess the impacts and effectiveness of the label, and monitor markets including preventing improper use by third parties. A key question is whether or not it is feasible to have a single organisation entrusted with setting up and overseeing the scheme globally, which also monitors and reviews its implementation. If a legal trademark approach is chosen, another important role for the organisation would be to file trademark applications to officially register the Biocultural Heritage Indication.

Misuse by authorised users needs to be regulated by the organisation managing the scheme. Misuse can be deliberate or inadvertent, so the first step on being made aware of the situation should be to take a non-confrontational approach and consult with the concerned community or group. However, continued misuse needs to be prevented because it will erode the credibility of the scheme and will be detrimental to all users. Arguably, a light touch monitoring of proper use of the Indication is preferable, and withdrawal of the right to use the mark should be seen as a last resort measure, with the option to appeal.

A consultation process is being held to obtain feedback on these and other key questions, such as how the scheme will ensure positive outcomes for biological and cultural diversity<fnref n="1" />. Responses to date have highlighted the importance of ensuring the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in managing the scheme for local ownership, and have suggested the establishment of local monitoring committees. They also highlighted the need to balance easy access to the indication with rigour to prevent unauthorised use. To this end, it was suggested that the indication should be trademark protected in at least three countries and that a website should be established listing all authorised users. While local or national markets should be prioritised initially to minimise the use of intermediaries, direct links to global markets could also be established via internet marketing.

<footnote n="1">1. The survey is available here: www.surveymonkey.com/r/BCH survey</footnote>
# Introduction to institutional innovations

Allison Loconto<fnref n="1" />, Anne-Sophie Poisot<fnref n="2" />, Pilar Santacolom<fnref n="2" /> and Marcello Vicovaro<fnref n="2" />

## Introduction

To build sustainable food systems, a transition must occur from current norms and practices to future ones that are more sustainable. Innovators in developing countries have long been linking diverse agricultural production to sustainable consumption, but few of these initiatives are documented or analyzed. How do farmers, communities, distributors, public authorities, researchers, and consumers build such systems and based on what values of sustainability? What types of innovations stimulate and govern these transitions? Answers to these questions can help us understand how interdependent system components realign around more sustainable practices; and how societal actors make changes in their technologies, networks, value chains, rules and daily routines – on the farm, on the road and at the table – to create sustainable, diverse food systems.

The socio-technical transitions literature has focused on sustainability (Grin, et al., 2010, Markard et al., 2012) and the epistemic controversies of agronomic knowledge (Sumberg and Thompson, 2012). It tells us that systems are faced with oppositional pressures from path-dependencies and socio-technical lock-ins; innovations must de-link from existing pathways so to re-direct them or create new ones (Geels, et al., 2016) and their regulation must likewise accommodate multi-layered hybridity (van Zwanenberg, et al., 2013). While early studies traced historical transitions, recent advances focus on the ‘anchoring’ of technologies, networks and institutions (Elzen, et al., 2012) where linking novelties with existing structures and institutions is precarious. We are in the midst of diverse transitions to sustainable food systems at multiple levels, thus any analysis of them needs to capture their dynamics; we must study transitions in the making.

This requires a shift in the analytical focus from historical pathways to the practices of actors as they construct the pathways (Elzen, et al., 2011, 2007, Steyaert et al., 2016, Stirling, 2011). One area that remains understudied is the role of intermediaries (Howells, 2006, Meyer and Kearnes, 2013, Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009, Callon, 1991). These actors are typically characterized as independent and disinterested parties who introduce new flows of knowledge and objects to existing networks or fill knowledge gaps in system failures. But recent work on sustainability in food systems found anomalies (Loconto, et al., 2016, 2016). At times, knowledge is uncertain, contested or old; networks are not pre-formed; and interests and normative values are misaligned. Intermediation is thus not always performed by a designated third-party, but by an interested actor who takes up a new role within the system, stimulates learning processes and changes the rules and routines (Kilelu, et al., 2011). In sum, there is a gap in understanding the role of intermediaries in governing the direction of transitions towards sustainable food systems.

## Method

We will present the methodology and results of a research collaboration that began between FAO and INRA in 2013. It concluded the first stage of the collaboration with a study that documents innovative institutional approaches that enable markets in developing countries to act as incentives for the adoption of sustainable crop production practices (Loconto, et al., 2016). The book, which covers 14 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, illustrates 15 good practices in setting up innovative food systems and describes the novel institutional arrangements that allowed the networks to succeed. Over this time, a network of innovators has developed and been kept engaged by FAO. In 2015, the team organized

<footnote n="1">1. INRA, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. FAO, Panama.</footnote>
a Researcher-Practitioner Workshop on Innovations in linking sustainable agricultural practices with markets in Bogota', Colombia. During this workshop, capacity building needs were identified for a group of innovation intermediaries who are fundamental in creating bottom-up and social innovations that both promote sustainable practices and create markets for sustainably farmed products.

Following a method developed in a previous research project (Bryndum et al., 2016) and used in the Bogota' workshop, we held a co-construction workshop in Chang Mai, Thailand in July, 2016 in order to begin applying the lessons learned to date. The approach taken is a participatory-action approach that will rely upon close collaboration with the innovators who have been collaborating in our projects, to create generalizable advice to a broader audience of actors who play an intermediary role in transitions to sustainable food systems. The design merges conceptual elements and framings (i.e., sustainable food systems) with a rigorous bottom-up approach of bringing in stakeholders' everyday experiences in implementing intermediation processes. The design requires careful stakeholder selection to balance gender, geographical representation, roles in the food system, and public, private and civil society organization affiliation. It takes an iterative approach in four phases of applied activities: exploration, presentation, investigation and concretization of guidance. Reflexivity and social learning are core parts of both transition management and intermediation, thus by stimulating these processes through co-construction workshops we generate both ideas for practice and data for qualitative analysis.

Our analytical approach focuses specifically on understanding how the actors in these transition processes define and put into action their own concepts of sustainability. One of the interesting insights from research on intermediation is that an important role for intermediaries is in problem identification, framing and solution finding (Steyaert et al., 2016). Through the co-construction process with innovators, we will be working and testing a practical guide that will contain information on how to build local food systems in developing countries that are able to focus on the sustainability of the entire system, not only on the agricultural practices. Therefore, in our work, we will have specific discussions around how system changes will bring about specific types of sustainability (social, economic, cultural, environmental and nutritional/health) for the involved actors and for the system as a whole.

As the introduction to this special session, in this presentation we will focus on a brief overview of the work of INRA and FAO on institutional innovations, including the theoretical positioning if this work and the policy importance of these approaches for transitions to sustainable food systems. Focus will be placed on the results of a three year research project that examined how the different roles and responsibilities of actors in local innovation systems facilitated both the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and the construction of markets for sustainably produced products. Current work on the co-construction of a guide for innovators on how to navigate through local food system transitions will also be introduced for discussion.

## Results

Through the analysis of 15 case studies, we classified the range innovations into three core mechanisms:

Participatory guarantee systems (PGS), which are innovations in certification systems. PGS are institutional arrangements created within local communities gathering together different actors who collectively ensure the compliance with good agricultural practices (typically organic or agroecological) thus creating a local system of production and consumption. PGS therefore both ensure the diffusion of the innovation and are the means through which the innovation process is governed. PGS serve to provide a direct guarantee, through the formation of a market, for sustainably produced food and agriculture products.

Multi-actor innovation platforms (IP), which are innovations in ways to create and share knowledge. An IP is an institutional arrangement where stakeholders gather together to facilitate and to plan the activities connected with the adoption of a specific agricultural technology. There is no set configuration for an IP, it can be centralised or decentralised and focus on research and/or development activities.
Community-supported agriculture (CSA), which are innovations in community investment in sustainable agriculture and a local economy. A CSA is an institutional arrangement created on existing community structures that try to solve sustainability problems that are specific to a local socio-cultural context and to specific agro-ecosystems.

By adopting these institutional innovations, the following results were reported by the innovators: (i) Innovations enabled the development of new market rules and assured the sustainable quality of products. (ii) New forms of organization permitted actors to play multiple roles in the system, such as farmer-auditor, farmer-researcher, consumer-auditor, consumer-intermediary. (iii) New forms of market exchange were created, such as box schemes, direct marketing, public procurement and community seed exchanges. (iv) New technologies for sustainable agriculture were applied, such as effective microorganisms, biopesticides and soil analysis techniques.

## Conclusions

These results provide important insights into how institutional and policy environments can enable local actors to innovate and transition to more sustainable food systems.

### Promote learning-by-doing to enhance technical and market knowledge

Interactive learning was essential for adapting sustainable agricultural practices to specific contexts. The most frequently noted approach was creating and sharing knowledge via farmer-led experimentation. Knowledge about agricultural practices was adapted and applied through a learning-by-doing approach and participatory experiments in farmers' fields. Through this approach, technical knowledge was combined with traditional knowledge of local farming systems, and individual farmers' knowledge of the agro-ecosystem. These interactions enabled farmers to build social innovations for marketing their food through direct sales.

### Strengthen farmers' innovations in strategic market negotiation

Farmers who engaged in strategic marketing did so by increasing their bargaining power in new and existing markets. They established semi-formal price-setting committees that included farmers, consumers, intermediaries and other value chain actors, used participatory guarantee systems (PGS) for certification, organized collective sales, and created physical spaces where new types of markets could be held. These institutional innovations increased farmers' capabilities in negotiating prices that reflected the additional value of sustainably produced products. Greater support for capacity building, infrastructure and investments that help farmers to become more strategic in exploiting market opportunities is crucial for improving farmers' capabilities to benefit from the monetary advantages found in new markets.

### Encourage communication and trust among farmers, intermediaries and consumers, starting in the field

When farmers, intermediaries and consumers interact directly outside the market, they build trust that carries over into their market interactions. These non-market interactions occur through collaboration in participatory research, membership in PGS, consumer study visits to farms, and community events. When these approaches are combined with direct marketing or increased consumer knowledge about current farming practices, consumer demand expands.

### Improve public infrastructure for value chain logistics

The consumers of sustainable products also look for other quality attributes such as freshness, reasonable shelf-life and safety in their food. Good management of logistics can make all the difference in ensuring that the food that consumers purchase meets these quality requirements. Logistics are also important for ensuring on-time delivery of sufficient quantities of the desired products, even for direct sales and particularly for box schemes.
*Legitimate innovative initiatives so that they can be scaled up*

Although most innovations are created by private actors and often rely on voluntary systems, public support is needed for their scale up. This support requires an enabling legal and policy environment that legitimizes both the sustainable agricultural practices and the marketing innovations. In the study, legitimization of innovations was found to be the most important role for public actors at the sub-national, national and international levels.

It is important to remember that flexibility should be integrated into all regulatory approaches that intend to encourage institutional innovation. Flexibility is needed in order to capitalize on the diversity of socio-cultural and agro-ecological practices found in each local context. Regulators should ensure that any new principles, laws, directives and programmes provide actors with the appropriate level of autonomy to adapt technologies and rules to their local situations. Governments and ministries can create dedicated public agencies and/or participatory platforms that serve as official spaces for debate, negotiation and elaboration of rules and incentive mechanisms that meet local requirements.

As with any transition process, institutional innovation is a long-term process that can be achieved only through cooperation among public, private and civil society actors. Enough time should be ensured to allow practitioners to experiment with different forms of innovations and researchers to accompany these processes.
# Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) as innovative institutional approach towards sustainable production.

John Mathew<fnref n="1" />

## Rationale for the research

Alternative approaches towards sustainable food systems are producing a variety of institutional innovations that are implemented at different scales (Loconto et al., 2016).

Our research is embedded in the sustainable development discourse, focusing in particular on the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, which aims at achieving sustainability in production and consumption patterns. In the contemporary agricultural paradigm, on one hand farmers are increasingly forced to engage with intensive unsustainable production systems and they are undergoing various pressures, constraining their control over their means of production. On the other hand, consumers are increasingly losing touch of how their food is produced.

In the context of our research, we look at institutional innovations as set of processes that redefine roles and relationships between multiple actors along the food system. Thanks to the growing awareness about sustainable food production in the last decades, different types of institutional innovations have been emerging and have been increasingly trying to challenge the prevailing agricultural paradigm. Among the most innovative and successful ones are Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), multi-actor platforms and Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) (Loconto et al., 2016).

PGS is an example of institutional innovation that offers a systemic approach to address sustainable agricultural production for small-scale farmers. As alternative certification methodology, PGS expands the horizon of guarantee systems in order to include in the process various stakeholders of the food chain: producers, consumers, retailers, traders and others such as NGOs.. PGS builds long-term trust-based relationships and accelerates learning processes through a more efficient and equal access to knowledge. Thus, it is a form of grassroots innovation that addresses social needs, but also contributes to economical and environmental sustainability. Creating a platform for social relationships and knowledge-exchange, they provide adaptable and localized services, in situations where the market is usually failing.

The evidence for the success of PGS is the pace with which this system has been adopted all over the world. Operational PGS are now found in 39 countries and they are endorsed by the government in Bolivia, Brazil, and India (FiBL & IFOAM-Orgnaics International, 2016). IFOAM – Organics International advocates for PGS since 2004 and recognizes the full diversity of production systems that are based on the principles of organic agriculture, including non-certified production.

During our presentation we want to highlight the role of PGS as a tool to implement institutional innovation in rural areas, with a particular focus on knowledge co-creation and exchange. We will address which types of actors are involved and how they can jointly learn and build new knowledge, find solutions and share responsibilities within their agri-food systems.

## Theoretical framework

In social-ecological systems (Holing 2001), decision-making of farmers is conceived as a process where strategies are interpreted into day-to-day actions (Vanwindekens et al. 2013). This translation, from strategies into practices, is extremely complex because it is based on the ecological, economic and social environment, meaning that strategies and practices are continuously adapted according to external changes (Doré et al. 2011).

<footnote n="1">1. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), D-53113 Bonn, Germany.</footnote>