(On-site evaluation: April - May 2006)

Ex-Post Monitoring for Completed ODA Loan Projects
Evaluator: Hiromi Osada (IC Net, Ltd.)
Project Name: Federative Republic of Brazil: “Northeast Irrigation Project” (L/A No. BZ-P5)
Loan Outline
Loan Amount/Disbursed Amount:
Loan Agreement:
Loan Completion:
Ex-Post Evaluation:
Executing Agency:

7,596 million yen / 7,316 million yen
September 1991
December 1998
FY 2000
Companhia de Desenvolvimento dos Vales do São Francisco (CODEVASF)

Project Objective
By constructing irrigation facilities and roads, etc., in three districts in the northeastern region of Brazil (Maria Tereza, Estreit IV and Miroros), this project aims to expand
irrigation areas and improve agricultural productivity, and thereby contribute to the development of social and economic conditions in that region.
Consultant: Pacific Consultants International
Contractor: Construtora OAS Ltda. (Brazil) and others
Overview of Results
Item
At time of Ex-post Evaluation
At time of Ex-post Monitoring
Effectiveness &Impact
The number of settled farmers has increased in all three districts comparedto the time of the ex-post evaluation. At this point in time, however,expansion of the irrigated land and the number of settled farmers in thetwo districts of Miroros and Estreit IV have remained stagnant (relative tothe time of the ex-post evaluation) due to insufficient water, andagricultural profitability (farm income) being low. The effects of the
project can be seen to a certain degree in Maria Teresa, but signs of effectin the other two districts appear to be limited.

Effectiveness(1) Crop yields for farm products
At the time of ex-post evaluation planned yield amounts were not reached, partially due
to the fact that the irrigation facilities had only just been completed. (Indicators at time ofplanning are unknown)(i) <Maria Teresa> performance data in 1999

(1) Crop yields for farm products(i) <Maria Teresa> performance data in 2005
Compared to the time of the ex-post evaluation (1999), the cultivated area grewsignificantly for mango and grape, and with the progress of intensification, theyields for banana, pumpkin, and melon grew. The yield for banana in particular1

grew significantly, increasing approximately 50-fold. A characteristic of Maria
Teresa is the large cultivated area for mango and grape, which are cultivated byagricultural companies.

Cultivated area

Crop (t)Yield (t/ha)Banana

(ha)
991

404

0.4

Coconut

550

N.A.

N.A.

Beans

494

532

1

Guava

459

N.A.

N.A.

Watermelon

237

3,795

16

BananaTomato

209

3,011

14

Pumpkin

191

2,273

Mango

189

Grape

Farm products

Cultivated area

Crop (t)Yield (t/ha)(ha)
Farm products

885.4

Increase/decrease*-

20,343.5

Increase/dec
rease
++

23

Increase/decrease++

Coconut

158.9-

2,689.3

N.A.

16.9

N.A.

12

Beans

51

--

88.7

--

1.7

+

N.A.

N.A.

Guava

704.6

+

17,018.3

N.A

24.2

N.A

56

N.A.

N.A.

Watermelon

53.7

--

1,043.8

--

19.4

+

Passion fruit

53

N.A.

N.A.

Tomato

22

--

687.9

--

31.3

+

Corn

46

81

3

Pumpkin37--

2,546.3

+

68.8

++

27

189

7

Mango

1,134.9++

16,781.2

N.A

14.8

N.A.

Onion

18

N.A.

N.A.

Grape

629.6

++

16,128.5

N.A

25.6

N.A

Acerola

8

N.A.

N.A.

Passion fruit

16.4

-

79.7

N.A

4.9

N.A

Custard apple

8

38

5

Corn

32.8

-

156.1

+

4.8

+

Melon

3

45

15

Onion

11.7

-

37.7

--

3.2

-

Carrot3

17

6

Acerola

61.4

-

461.9

N.A

7.5

N.A

Chili pepper

3,549

-

-

Custard apple

11.5

+

288.7

N.A

25.1

N.A.

Melon

22

+

741.2

++

33.7

++

Tapioca

22

N.A.

836.2

N.A.

38

N.A.

Total

3,854.9+

Total

Source: Executing agency materials.

(ii) <Miroros> performance data in 1999
Farm products
BananaCultivated area

Crop (t)Yield (t/ha)

(ha)
340

2,138

6

Source: Executing agency response.
*The symbols for “increase/decrease” indicate the following: relative to the time of the 1999
ex-post evaluation, +: increase less than 5-fold; ++: increase 5-fold or greater; - : decrease less2

Coconut

45

N.A.

N.A.

Beans

943

559

1

Guava

9

N.A.

N.A.

Watermelon

39

261

6

Tomato

4

N.A.

N.A.

Pumpkin

10

132

13

Mango

20

N.A.

N.A.

Corn

24

48

2

Onion

2

23

12

37

N.A.

N.A.

BananaCustard apple
Melon

2

20

10

Carrot1

20

Sugarcane

3

CoffeeTotalthan 5-fold; -- : decrease 5-fold or greater.

(ii) <Miroros> performance data in 2005
From 2003 onward the price of beans—which was a major crop on par withbananas—fell, and its cultivated area has been decreasing. As in Maria Teresa, theintensification of banana production progressed, and both crop and yield haveincreased significantly. The yields for each of the crops are lower than in Maria
Teresa.
Cultivated area
Farm products

682.6

Increase/decrease+

Coconut

68.5

20

Beans

310

70

1

N.A.

N.A.

1,498

-

-

Source: Executing agency materials.

Crop (t)Yield (t/ha)(ha)

12,500.5

Increase/dec
rease
++

18.3

Increase/dec
rease
+

+

92.2

N.A

1.3

N.A

52.3

--

69.9

--

1.3

+

Guava

18.2

+

305.8

N.A

16.8

N.A

Watermelon

13

-

119.8

-

9.2

+

Tomato

20.7

++

547.5

N.A

26.4

N.A

Pumpkin

25.2

+

100.3

-

4

-

Mango

39.6

+

44.6

N.A

1.1

N.A

Passion fruit

8.5

N.A

51.5

N.A

6.1

N.A

Corn

178.7

++

334.1

++

1.9

-

Custard apple

202.2

+

201.6

N.A

1

N.A

Tapioca

2.2

N.A

2.4

N.A

1.1

N.A

Castor oil plant

24.4

N.A

14.2

N.A

0.6

N.A

Total

1336.1-

Source: Executing agency response.

3

(iii) Performance figures for Estreit IV are not available.

(iii) <Estreit IV> performance data in 2005
The first period of settlement took place from the end of 2004 through 2005, andplanting began. Currently, beans are being cultivated as a crop for self-sufficiency,
while there is expanding cultivation of banana as a cash crop. As it takes more than
one year before the first harvest for banana, at the time of this monitoring the firstbanana harvest had not yet been completed.
Farm products

Cultivated area

Crop (t)Yield (t/ha)

(ha)
143.4
423.7
18.7
1.5
5
4.8
4.9
601.3

0
444.9
82.7
1.1
30.3
1.3
98
-

0
1.1
4.4
0.7
6.1
0.3
20
-

BananaBeans
Watermelon
Pumpkin
Passion fruit
Corn
Tapioca
Total

Source: Executing agency response.

(2) Benefited area and number of settlers (results in 2005)(i) Area where irrigation is possible and current settled area (developed area)
DistrictPlan*

1999**(Time of ex-post
evaluation)

2005***(Time of ex-postmonitoring)
Settled area (%)
3,977 (84%)
1,958 (83%)
674 (12%)

Maria Teresa
4,938
4,724
Miroros
3,376
2,332
Estreit IV
6,821
5,844
Source: Executing agency response.
*Planned irrigation area at time of analysis; **area in which irrigation is possible withcompletion of project; ***area used as irrigated land with settlement.

None of the three districts have yet reached the possible irrigation area which wasplanned at the time of project completion. Settlement is in progress. In Maria
Teresa, settlers are currently being recruited and the number of settled farmers is
gradually increasing. The growth, however, is not as swift as was anticipated. In
Miroros, the dam water source is also a source of water for municipal water
services. There are concerns that an expansion in water service needs and the dryweather in recent years could lead to a water shortage. CODEVASF is thus facing
greater settlement recruitment than it is conducting currently. In Estreit IV, the4

major reason that settlement has only progressed to around 12% of the irrigation
area is that not enough water can be secured to cover the planned irrigation ofEstreit overall1, and as a result CODEVASF has currently stopped recruiting new
settlers for Estreit IV. Meanwhile, illegal settlers (approximately 450 families) areillegally taking water for an area of approximately 500ha along the shore of theEstreit dam reservoir. CODEVASF is aware of the issue that the settlement area in
Estreit IV cannot be further expanded. As such, it appears that insufficientirrigation water is one of the impediments to the expansion of settlement areas inMiroros and Estreit IV.
With regard to illegal occupation in Estreit IV as mentioned above, approximately
450 families of illegal occupants are cultivating a total of approximately 500ha offarmland along the shore of the dam reservoir. These families are not joining
irrigation management cooperatives and are using water from the dam reservoir
illegally. In a survey by CODEVASF, it is estimated that this is one of the factors
behind the lack of water in the Estreit district. A confrontation with cooperative
members has not yet surfaced, but CODEVASF has recognized that this illegal
occupation is an issue which must be solved, and is seeking measures to solve it.
(ii) Number of settled farmers (number of settled companies* in parentheses)
1999
2005
(Time of(Time of ex-post
DistrictPlan
ex-postmonitoring)evaluation)
Maria Teresa
Miroros
Estreit IV

823 (N/A)
413 (33)917 (113)417 (35)150 (7)0 (0)550 (52)
201 (36)
116 (0)Source: Executing agency response.
*Agricultural companies with a corporate structure carrying out the cultivation andshipment of agricultural products

In Maria Teresa, settlement has been increasing gradually from the time of the
ex-post evaluation, and it is currently still progressing. In Miroros, the current

1

According to a report on a separate survey (2005), possible reasons for the water shortage in the current 1902ha irrigation area of Estreit overall include: (i) the actual crops are different from the ones initially planned,
such as beans and corn, and the central crops have become bananas and mangos which require large amounts of irrigation water; (ii) rather than sprinkler irrigation, which requires farmers to have electricity, there isheavy use of furrow irrigation which results in large losses of water during watering; (iii) the loss of water from the dam reservoir, the cause of which has still not been completely investigated and is unknown (oneexplanation seems to be that a major cause is the stealing of irrigation water for approximately 450ha by illegal occupants at the upper area of the dam).

5

number was reached in 2000, and there have not been increases since then. In
Estreit IV, settlement has not progressed since the initial settlement of 116
households. The reasons are covered in (i) above.
(3) Farm income per household (family/year)
The average gross profit for farmers in Maria Teresa in 2005 was 179% of the legal
minimum wage in Brazil in 2006 (349 Brazilian real per month). Meanwhile,
profitability was low in Miroros and Estreit IV, with the figures at 89% and 35%,
respectively. The direct cause behind the low profits was the high cost of production
relative to income. The average monthly gross profit for agricultural companies,
converted into the same area ratio as farmers (5ha/30ha), was 3,192 real (19,156 ×
1/6) per company, a profitability level of approximately nine times the legal minimum
wage.

District

Maria Teresa
Miroros
Estreit IV
Agriculturalcompanies(Maria Teresa)

Unit: real (1 real = 55.033 yen [May 6, 2006 exchange rate])
AverageAnnual productmonthly grossAnnual sales
cost
Annual grossprofit(Average per(Percentage of
profit(Percentage offamily)income)minimum
wage)
18,031
10,530 (58%)
7,501
625 (179%)
12,0008,250 (69%)
3,750
313 (89%)
7,006
5,556 (79%)
1,451
121 (35%)
775,750

545,875 (70%)

229,875

19,156

Source: Created from answers by irrigation cooperatives.

(4) Percentage of water use fees collected (results in 2005)
The status of collection differs somewhat among the regions. In Maria Teresa, there
are some delays in payment, but the collection rate is 100%. In Miroros, only around
65% of the set water use fee amount is collected. The main reason that the fees are
not collected is that, according to interviews with executives of irrigation
management cooperatives, the farmers cannot pay because they do not have enoughmoney. The shortfall is being covered by CODEVASF funding. With Estreit IV
currently in the first year after settlement, CODEVASF for the first fiscal year is set
to provide irrigation maintenance costs, so water use fees are still not being collected.
As such, in Miroros and Estreit IV the maintenance costs for facilities is being used
toward water use fees, and this is currently being covered by CODEVASF funding.

6

Impact

No data available.

(1) Improvement in social and economic situation
The GRDP in both Pernambuco, where Maria Teresa is located, and Bahia, where
Miroros and Estreit IV are located, has increased relative to the time of the analysis in
1991. Nevertheless, in 2005 the values for agricultural production in the target
districts of this project were approximately 28 million real in Maria Teresa(approximately 0.7% of the GRDP for the agricultural sector in Pernambuco) andapproximately 4.2 million real for Miroros and Estreit IV combined (approximately
0.05% of the GRDP for the agricultural sector in Bahia), and it is estimated that thedegree of contribution of this project’s districts will be relatively small. The
unemployment rates in both states are increasing.

State

GRDP
(Unit: real)

GRDP (Agricultural
sector)(Unit: real)(Ratio accounted
for by this projectin parentheses)

Unemployment rate

1991

2005

1991

2005

1991

2005

19.96
billion42.26
billion

1.56
billion

4.14
billion(0.7%)

7.8%

10.6%

Pernambuco

30.38
billion73.17
billion

3.21
billion

8.41
billion(0.05%)

7.7%

9.8%

Bahia

Source: Created from Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) data. (GRDP figures
for this project are based on data from the executing agency)(2) Improvement in quality of life for settlers
In a questionnaire carried out amongst small farmers, the majority in each of the
districts answered that their quality of life had improved.

7

District (Number of people insurvey)Percentage who
answered that theirliving conditions had
improved

Maria Teresa (87)67.8%

Miroros (89)87.6%

Estreit IV (78)74.4%

Reasons
1) Land was acquired, which could
be cultivated by themselves, then,gained a means of livelihood.
Satisfied.
2) Income has improved.
3) Productivity is better than before
when the land was dry. Etc.

Source: Questionnaire survey carried out in this monitoring

Approximately 13% responded that their quality of life had not improved. The main
reason given for this was that the investment they had made was not commensuratewith their income. In a group interview in Estreit IV for this survey, the settlers
mentioned the following problems related to living conditions: (a) there is no accessto funds for agricultural input materials; (b) there is insufficient social infrastructure,including schools, health services, housing, and drinking water; (c) there are no
telephone or internet services, and if there are, they are of poor quality; and (d)electricity costs are high.
As such, several issues still remain, including productivity, profitability, and thedevelopment of social infrastructure. Nevertheless, it appears that the project has acertain degree of effectiveness with regard to the extremely poor class, including
farmers who did not own land and did not have a means of livelihood.
(3) Environmental Impact
CODEVASF has conducted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the three
districts, and plans to continue carrying out monitoring in the future.

8

Sustainability
There is no major change from the time of the ex-post evaluation. With
regard to technical capacity, however, slightly too much emphasis wasplaced on the spread of production technology, and support for
improving the profitability of farmers was somewhat insufficient.
Operation and maintenance system for facilities has been established,but in Miroros and Estreit IV, the low profitability of farmers is having
a negative effect on the finances of irrigation management
cooperatives.
(1) Technical capacity
All new settlers received technical support on farm management from CODEVASF at thetime of settlement.

(1) Technical capacity(i) Technical support for farmers by CODEVASF
Technical support from the government for small farmers has been stipulated infederal laws, and CODEVASF and related government institutions are providing
the following services to small farmer members of irrigation cooperatives, using
private companies and consultants:• Support related to the organization and operation of irrigation cooperatives.
• Consultation services for irrigation cooperatives on technical capacity, laws, andoperation.
• Technical support related to maintenance and the creation of operational
instructions for bidders.
• General research on agricultural technologies, distribution, and the marketing ofproducts.
(ii) Technical issues recognized by farmers
In a questionnaire survey carried out for this monitoring, farmers mentioned the
problems listed below. In parentheses are the percentages of the 254 respondents
that mentioned each problem (multiple answers). Many farmers are calling
specifically for technical support with regard to (I), (II), (III), and (IV), covered
below. They are currently not being addressed by CODEVASF’s technical support
framework, and appear to be future challenges in terms of technical support.
(I) The price of crops is low (48%); (II) water use fees and production costs arehigh (28%); (III) there is no access to funds (26%); (IV) marketing is difficult(20%); (V) access roads are in poor condition (13%); (VI) the problem of9

agricultural pests (12%); (VII) insufficient water (10%); (VIII) other (poor quality
products, lack of alternative crop operations, insufficient technical support, etc.).
(2) Structural organization
Responsibility for maintenance of the irrigation facilities has been transferred from
CODEVASF to the farmers using them. (24 irrigation management cooperatives were set
up under CODEVASF direction)
In Maria Teresa and Estreit IV, the irrigation facilities are managed by existing
management cooperatives. In Miroros, management is being carried out by a new
management cooperative which was set up after the completion of the project.

(2) Structural organization(i) Management responsibility
In principle, for CODEVASF projects, irrigations facilities—with the exception ofdams and electrical facilities—are transferred to the irrigation management
cooperatives one year after construction. In the three districts targeted in thisproject, management responsibility for each of the facilities is divided as shown in
the following chart. Dams and electrical facilities are managed by each project
head and not the irrigation management cooperatives. No problems have occurredthat would impact the operation of irrigation facilities.
Facility
Dam

Major waterways,
pumps, drainage
canals, water
distribution canals

Electricalfacilities,
substations

Roads within
irrigation district

Roads for accessfrom other areas

Maria Teresa
Companhia Hidro
Elétrica do SãoFrancisco (CHESF)
Nilo Coelho
irrigation
management
cooperative

Miroros
CODEVASF

Estreit IV
CODEVASF

Miroros irrigation
management
cooperative

Companhia deEletricidade do
Estado da Bahia(COELBA) and
Pernambuco
Companhia
Energetica dePernambuco(CELPE)
Nilo Coelho
irrigation
management
cooperative

Companhia deEletricidade do
Estado da Bahia(COELBA)

Estreit irrigation
management
cooperative(maintenance carriedout together with
CODEVASF)
Companhia deEletricidade do Estado
da Bahia (COELBA)

Petrolina city
government

Miroros irrigation
management
cooperative

Ibipeba city
government

Estreit irrigation
management
cooperative(maintenance carriedout together with
CODEVASF)
Urandi city government

Source: Executing agency

10

(ii) Mechanism of irrigation management cooperatives
The following is an overview of the cooperatives in each region. The cooperatives
are composed of all recipient farmers and employees of agricultural companies
who have settled, and they each have a board of directors made up of chairpersons,auditing members, and members. The members of the board of directors are
selected by vote from among the members of the cooperative. The board plays
roles such as determining maintenance plans, management policies, and theamount of water fees collected, and carrying out negotiations and adjustments with
CODEVASF and other institutions. As such, the irrigation management
cooperatives in each district have organizational structures that have been
established in a common manner for irrigation districts of CODEVASF projects.
Through a local survey, it was confirmed that the management staff of
CODEVASF regional offices, promoters, and cooperatives have maintained asmooth cooperative structure.
District

Name of cooperative

Maria
TeresaNilo Coelho irrigation management
cooperative (including all of Nilo
Coelho region)
Miroros irrigation management
cooperative
Estreitirrigation
management
cooperative (including Estreit I
through III*)

Miroros
EstreitIV

Number ofmembers(Number of
directors)
602
(11)
237
(13)
116
(15)

Year ofestablishment
1999

1997
1995

Source: Responses of irrigation management cooperatives.
*In Estreit, one cooperative has been formed for districts I through IV. Farmers in Estreit IV
joined the existing cooperative.

(3) Financial status(Description not available)
All the irrigation management cooperatives collect water usage charges easily from thefarmers and use it for pump electricity charges, improvements to irrigation equipment
and other applications. (Description of the financial status of the irrigation management(3) Financial status
Irrigation collectives are collecting water use fees from collective members, and this isa source of funding for expenses in maintaining the irrigation facilities. CODEVASF
shouldered the maintenance costs for one year following the transfer, but the fullamounts were shouldered by the cooperatives after that. As was stated in “(4)Percentage of water use fees collected” under “Effectiveness,” since the transfer there
are still farmers who are having difficulties in paying water use fees, resulting in11

cooperatives themselves is not available)

non-payment and delayed payment. In Miroros, the farmers have been receiving
financial support from CODEVASF continually since 2001. As such, the low
profitability of farmers is causing financial problems for cooperatives.

Unit: US$District

Maria
TeresaMiroros

Estreit
IV*

Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2004
2005

Total water
usage amountfor irrigationcollective
492,543
732,745504,899543,307693,807839,863
1,243,967
N.A
158,528
190,065
163,657
205,830
214,166
336,47500

Total
expenditure548,409732,745504,899543,307710,200
839,863
1,243,967
N.A
158,528295,204
254,112
268,815415,616
684,258
54,43589,460

Amount ofsupport by
CODEVASF
55,866000
16,39300N.A
085,69892,78056,791
82,829125,71554,43589,460Source: Executing agency materials*Amount for Estreit IV alone is extracted from overall amount for Estreit cooperative. Settlementin Estreit IV began at the end of 2004 through 2005. The expenditure for the first year of
settlement is shouldered by CODEVASF.

(4) Operation and maintenance
The irrigation facilities in Maria Teresa and Miroros have been operating smoothly since
their completion. In Estreit IV, the irrigation facilities were not provided with enoughwater for irrigation because the new irrigation dam (covered by an Inter-American(4) Operation and maintenanceThe current status of water use facilities in the districts is that functional problems at
the facilities are at the level of those that occur in ordinary use. In each district there
are not any problems that are too great to be solved by the supervisors.

12

Development Bank (IDB) loan) did not contain enough water, so (at the time of the
ex-post evaluation) it has yet to begin operation. CODEVASF, in order to bring the waterin the dam to an adequate level, is now conducting a detailed survey.
New settlers are receiving continued technical support from irrigation cooperatives after
settlement, and operation and maintenance of irrigation facilities is autonomously
being carried out by irrigation management cooperatives.

Lessons
Learned,Recommendati
ons,
Information
Resources andMonitoring
Methods

In both Miroros and Estreit IV, the stagnant expansion of thesettlement areas and the low profitability of farming were obstacles toincreasing the effectiveness and impact of the project, and these areserious factors which will also have an effect on sustainability. It isnecessary to carry out improvement measures in order to ensure theeffectiveness and sustainability of the project.

(1) Follow up on
lessons learned
andrecommendatio
ns made in
ex-postevaluation
report or in later
evaluations(1) Lessons learned
N/A(2) Proposals forsecuring
sustainability
and instructions
given at time offollow-up
monitoring(2) Recommendations
With regard to the insufficient water level at the new irrigation dam in Estreit IV, prompt
attention needs to be given to securing water for irrigation. Indirect support (such assupport for the organization of maintenance cooperatives, guidance in farm management,
and funding through agricultural financing) from government-related institutions,
including the executing agency, can be expected.

(1) Lessons learned
This project is targeted at poor settlers and employees of small and medium
agricultural enterprises. A certain degree of effect is starting to be produced forindividual settlers, but it is difficult to produce economic benefits as: (a) it is notpossible to expand the recipient area due to insufficient water, and (b) the profitabilityof farmers is low. The factors behind this situation are complex. Possible internal
factors include the fact that current crops are greatly different from those planned, andthat strategic support for small farmers from the perspective of farmer management
and nurturing industries was weak in terms of the CODEVASF project. Possible
external factors include the fact that social infrastructure, aside from the irrigation
facilities, was not sufficiently developed. Accordingly, it would seem necessary tostrengthen “soft” support, including support for the strategic production planning ofcrops and agricultural technology, and the development of infrastructure related tosupporting agricultural activities.
(2) Recommendations(i) Measures against water shortage in Estreit IV
The water shortage in Estreit IV, which is an impediment to the expansion of thesettlement area, appears to have multiple causes, including the problem of illegal
occupants. The executing agency should organically cooperate with state
governments, other government agencies, and the private sector in order toinvestigate these problems, and solutions to the water shortage problem should be13examined in detail.
(ii) Measures to improve the income of small farmers
Small farmers in Estreit IV and Miroros have fallen into a vicious cycle of poverty
due to: (a) a disadvantageous location, (b) low prices for producers, (c) highproduction costs, and (d) a lack of investment funding. Solutions are elusive. If
things remain the way they are, even if the water shortage problem is solved andsettlement begins again, the same type of poor farmers will likely increase, and the
project cannot be expected to lead to long-term independent development. Hence,the executing agency needs to start the implementation of “soft” improvement
measures such as “forming a strategy for realizing higher producer prices andreducing production costs,” and “building business models for poor small farms.”
These measures should be carried out with a view toward cooperation with othergovernment agencies and the private sector in a feasible manner from theperspectives of marketing, shipping, and commercial viability.

14