APRIL 2011 P4P Update_FINAL

Document Sample
APRIL 2011 P4P Update_FINAL Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                                ISSUE 7

                    PURCHASE FOR PROGRESS                                                                  ISSUE 31

                                APRIL UPDATE                                                             APRIL 2011

  P4P Pilot Countries        HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MONTH

         AFRICA              • International grain prices continued to surge in April. The increase in prices, whether
                                the cost of imported rice in Sierra Leone (that increased by 30% between December
                                and March) or maize in Uganda (from US$175 per metric ton in November 2010 to
                                US$ 388 in March 2011) has made the implementation of P4P across the regions more
                                challenging and has resulted in revisions to procurement plans in Ethiopia, Kenya and

                             • WFP convened a Technical Peer Review meeting of P4P’s Monitoring and Evaluation
                                system in Washington DC, 19-20 April, with representation from US-based donors,
                                US Government, academic institutions, multilateral agencies, NGOs and WFP
                                colleagues from the Regional Bureau in Dakar and Panama, P4P Country Coordinators
   CENTRAL AMERICA              from Malawi and Rwanda and headquarters staff from Procurement and P4P
                                Coordination Unit (see page 4). The P4P Country Coordinator for Rwanda also took
                                the opportunity to participate in a panel discussion on "The Hidden Role of Gender in
                                Food Security & Value Chain Development" hosted by the Society for International
                                Development in Washington.

                             • The P4P theme in April continued to be “taking stock of implementation to date”:
                                including partnership reviews in Uganda (see page 3) and country specific annual
                                reviews in Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone and Tanzania (page 4). The mid-term evaluation
                                has now completed its field missions in all seven countries (El Salvador, Guatemala,
                                Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Uganda and Zambia).

                             Multiple Challenges with Rice Purchases in Sierra Leone

                             Of 440 tons of milled rice contracted in December 2010
                             from 12 P4P farmers’ organisations (FOs), ten FOs had
                             delivered a total of 172 tons by end-April. One FO has fully
                             defaulted. The main reasons for delay and default include:
                             - Side-selling by farmers due to price increases for
                             local rice (associated with the higher price for imported
                             rice): The price of local rice rose by 30% between
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS        December 2010 and March 2011. As a lesson learnt, WFP
                             will purchase only 20-30 tons of milled rice in one contract
21 P4P Pilots:               from now on, because FOs need up to two months to
• 21 Country Assessment      process and package 20-30 tons, during which time the
  Missions completed.        price of local rice may increase significantly. New
• 20 Approved Country        agreements may then be signed if FOs have delivered and still have more to sell.
  Implementation Plans       - Machine breakdowns: WFP and supply-side partners provided rice processing
  (CIP): Afghanistan, DRC,   machinery to P4P FOs in late 2010. The Program Advisory Group recommended buying
  El Salvador, Ethiopia,     locally available machines so that FOs are able to conduct maintenance. But machines
  Honduras, Ghana,           broke down for two main reasons: wrong installation by the supplier and improper use of
  Guatemala, Kenya,          the machines by the FOs.
  Nicaragua, Burkina Faso,
  Liberia, Mali, Malawi,     - Low yields: 2010/2011 yields were low due to irregular rains and pest control problems.
  Mozambique, Rwanda,        - Difficult road access and high transport costs: The executive bodies of FOs and
  Sierra Leone, Sudan,       post-harvest facilities are often in central locations where WFP collects, while the member
  Tanzania, Uganda and       groups with the smallholders are farming in the district interior. The FOs pay up to 15% of
  Zambia.                    the price they receive for their produce for transport, as transport services in remote
• Laos: CIP under develop-   areas are limited and expensive. Supply-side partners provided a cash grant and transport
  ment (still unfunded).     services for commodity aggregation, but the sustainability of this approach is certainly
                             The delay in the sale of rice is also hampering the sale of pigeon peas, as FOs need money
                             from the sale of rice to aggregate pigeon peas and do not have the capacity to sell both
                             products at the same time.
Page 2                                                                                                            ISSUE 31

Liberia: Farmers venture into new areas

When the Selega Farmers Group first affiliated itself with P4P, Chairman Zubah Jallah was concerned about the sustainability
of the program. Many other projects had previously come to his village and many initiatives had died down by the end of the
project’s implementation. “Organizations come in here to give us seed rice and encourage us to work in the swamp, but it’s
really hard work and a lot of the farmers don’t see any reason to keep doing it once the project finishes,” says Jallah.
But after his first sale of paddy rice to P4P last year, Jallah began
to see P4P differently. With cash in hand he explains: “We had a
good harvest this year and some of us are really happy WFP
gave us money for our rice. Now we have to figure out how we
can grow enough to keep selling.”
With the agricultural season approaching, the Selega Farmers
have come up with a plan to ensure that they will be able to
grow an even bigger surplus this year. They have started their
own seed bank from which farmers can borrow seeds for
planting and then pay back seeds at the time of harvest.
“This way almost all of our farmers will be able to grow enough
rice to sell at least one or two bags this year, and our seed bank
will grow,” notes Jallah.                                               Selega Farmers Group. Copyright: WFP.
The Selega Farmers continue to make plans to maximize rice production because they have already started to see the benefits
of P4P on their community – not only for the farmers, but also for school girls benefitting from a WFP school feeding
programme: Their take-home ration, which they receive for attending school regularly to encourage parents to send their girls
to school, consists of local rice.

  During the first quarter of 2011, procurement activities included the following:
  •      In Afghanistan, 417 tons of wheat were purchased from Quaisar Tool Bank in Faryab province and delivered to a
         WFP rub hall (moveable warehouse) in Maimana.

  •      The Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) has formally requested WFP to implement
         a ‘Common P4P’. MINAGRI will start to purchase directly from smallholder farmers for the national strategic grain
         reserve, and requested WFP’s P4P to provide technical support for the implementation.

  •      In South Sudan, the first significant grain purchase was finalized, with the Nzara Agricultural Farmer Association
         supplying 130 tons of maize to WFP, earning US$ 49,000. This breakthrough purchase sends a strong signal to
         farmers operating in the Equatoria region that WFP is a serious buyer.

  •      In Mali, farmers’ organisations informed WFP that they had more grain to sell than they contracted for under a
         direct contract. P4P took the opportunity to introduce four organisations to soft tendering practices to enable the
         organisations to graduate to a more market-based approach. FOs were selected according to their supply capacity,
         strong technical support from supply-side partners and their previous performance. 2,168 tons of rice were
         purchased from Faso Jigi farmers’ organisation for WFP’s emergency operation in Cote d'Ivoire.

  •      In Burkina Faso, six forward contracts for a total of 686 tons of sorghum (contracts signed August 2010) and 92
         tons of maize (signed November 2010) were delivered completely and on time in February.

  •      In El Salvador, “business rounds” were held between farmers’ organisation participating in P4P and other potential
         buyers (Walmart and the National Military).

  •      In Guatemala, during the first quarter of 2011, farmers’ organizations were to deliver maize from contracts signed
         in late 2010. One lot of 127 tons could not be paid for in full as the quality did not meet WFP requirements due to
         weather damage. Following this, three consecutive deliveries of similar amounts were instead sold to local traders.

  •      In Honduras, 18 P4P farmers’ organisations sold a total of 4,200 tons of maize and 1.7 tons (1,700 kgs) of beans to
         the Governments’ National School Feeding Programme.

  •      In Kenya, of 3,279 tons expected to be delivered to WFP during the first quarter of 2011, farmers’ organisations and
         small traders delivered only 533 tons, constituting a default of 84%. The primary reason is a 28% increase in the
         wholesale maize price between contracting and delivery.
Page 3                                                                                                                  ISSUE 31

WFP and partners jointly reviewed the Agricultural Market Support/P4P program in Uganda to inform the direction of the
initiative moving forward. Overall, the review team was pleased with the progress made thus far and observed that project
implementation is on track. The partnership review identified both challenges and best practices outlined below:
Challenges                                                             Best Practices
Communication: Further sensitization of communities on the             The following approaches emerged from the review and
overall goal and objectives of P4P is still required. The need to      could prove helpful to P4P stakeholders in Uganda and
formulate key specific messages about the project was                  beyond:
emphasized, to be disseminated by all stakeholders.                    Strong project ownership by the community and
Integrating traders: Experiences from the different partners           local district governments: One element leading to
who have succeeded in organizing and training selected traders         project success is community ownership. It is important to
will be shared as best practices.                                      continue sensitizing farmers on what P4P is and how
Accessing market information: The Grameen Foundation is                beneficial it is to the target communities. It is equally
piloting a mobile phone based system that enables targeted             important that the activities implemented under P4P fall
farmers to view most recent price information, but the coverage        within the district development plans and that the districts
is still limited compared to the number of districts where P4P is      are involved in regular monitoring of P4P activities.
implemented.                                                           Community contribution: In Agoro sub-county near
Expanding the capacity of farmer groups to generate                    Kitgum in Northern Uganda, the community has
start up capital: Farmers’ access to start-up capital is               contributed to road construction through completing the
inadequate. In some areas, member contributions and small              first stage of road clearing. This creates a strong sense of
tariffs on services provided at bulking sites is a way to create       ownership and should be encouraged in all investments
start up capital.                                                      undertaken under P4P.
Supply/access to agriculture inputs is limited and                     Farmer to farmer support: Some partners have
unreliable: The cost of inputs such as quality seeds is high since     adopted the model farmer approach to mentor farming
most of the suppliers are based in Kampala with few regional           communities. This is underway in Busoga (eastern Uganda)
outlets. In order to purchase the inputs in good time, some            where model farmers demonstrate postharvest handling
farmers have accessed loans through village saving schemes that        activities, store management approaches and record
are starting to provide an alternative option for farmers to           keeping practices.
purchase inputs on their own. The overall collateral loans             Working with District and Sub-County officials: The
provided through the Warehouse Receipt Systems (WRS) have              review noted strong engagement by district and sub-county
so far reached over US$ 500,000 in Jinja and Masindi districts.        local governments in the implementation of P4P activities.
Training farmers in “farming as a business”: Farmers need              Engaging government officials in planning meetings,
more training in farming as a business, including financial literacy   training, workshops and community sensitization meetings
with the aim of i) improving yields or reducing losses in order to     is critical. The integration of P4P into district development
maximize efficiency and profit; and ii) helping them compare the       plans also ensures sectoral linkages with government
cost/benefit of different crops and promoting diversification.         programmes supporting smallholder farmers.
Record keeping and store management: Successful                        Accessing new markets: The empowerment of the
management models should be documented and shared across               farmers to seek other markets beyond WFP has enabled
the programme. For example, the Market Collection Centre in            farmers sell their produce at competitive prices. For
Nankoma, Bugiri district, has successfully traded over 120 tons        example, over 90 million Uganda Shillings (US$ 37,000) has
of maize to Kenyan and Ugandan buyers and realized over                been realized from the sale of 226 tons of maize, beans and
US$ 33,000 in total sales.                                             rice by different farmer groups supported by Food for the
Bulking: Satellite collection points should alleviate the              Hungry and Cooperazione E Sviluppo (CESVI) in Pader
immediate storage shortfall for the target farmer groups. This         district in northern Uganda. The farmers attracted buyers
has been demonstrated by three satellite collection points that        from the neighbouring districts, institutions as well as
bulked grain and successfully sold it. P4P partners are                traders from southern Sudan.
encouraged to pay special attention to developing strong and           Using portable shellers: The Office for Relief and
sustainable stores management and marketing structures.                Development (ORDS) in Busoga region is providing
Ensuring trained farmers relay information to group                    farmers with portable shellers, which can be used at
members: In areas where the “training of trainers” approach is         household level or in the field. This reduces postharvest
utilized, farmers are expected to pass the knowledge on to             losses as well as increasing the reach of shelling services
other group members. In some sites visited, farmers showed             since the       machine is accessible to many farmers within
limited capacity to do so.                                             a short time.
Access to the Warehouse Receipt System facility in                     Using the Radio: World Vision International, working in
northern Uganda: One key foreseeable challenge is the                  Kitgum district (northern Uganda) has a weekly live
inability of farmers, especially in the north, to take their produce   talk-show on radio. Farmers and traders can call in with a
or participate in the WRS owing to limited transport, lack of          variety of questions which are directly answered on air.
information about the system and the need for immediate cash           Farmers prefer to listen in to radio programmes when
to pay for basic requirements. It is possible that small to medium     aired on popular radio stations. Additionally, with support
scale traders will play an instrumental role in purchasing and         from the NGO CESVI, radio spot messages on prices and
delivering food commodities to the WRS warehouse facility in           other related market information run weekly on Rupiny, a
Gulu. The focus therefore, will be to strengthen the bargaining        local FM radio station.
power of farmers through group marketing and increase access
to market information.
Page 4                                                                                                                 ISSUE 31

Washington Seminar
WFP convenes technical peer review meeting on P4P’s Monitoring and Evaluation system in Washington DC, 19-20 April
Forty participants representing academic institutions, donors, the NGO community, WFP practitioners and HQ staff came
together for a two day workshop to engage agricultural development stakeholders in peer review and validation of WFP’s
approach to monitoring and evaluation for P4P. It was also an opportunity for WFP to identify and explore opportunities for
Present were representatives from the ACDI-VOCA,
African Economic Research Consortium, CRS, Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, Howard G. Buffett Foundation,
Earth Institute, IFPRI, Mercy Corps, Michigan State
University, Partnership for Child Development, University
of Illinois, USDA, USAID, World Vision and WFP staff
from Malawi, Rwanda, the regional bureaus in Dakar and
Panama and HQ.
The first day focused primarily on setting the scene –
reviewing WFP’s local and regional procurement (LRP)
activities, with an emphasis on differences between the
standard LRP approach and that of the P4P pilot, and
WFP’s approach to monitoring and evaluation of P4P.
The second day’s sessions gave participants an opportunity
to discuss common challenges in meeting data collection
and reporting requirements for USG-funded LRP projects
and to explore opportunities for collaboration –
specifically around USDA/USAID reporting, but also more
broadly to enhance joint learning about agricultural and
market development activities.
MSU received some useful feedback on the proposed approach for assessing the impact of WFP’s standard LRP (see
presentation here:, and there was a frank
exchange of ideas and learning on approaches adopted to meet the reporting requirements for United States Government-
funded LRP projects. There was recognition of the need for rigour and comprehensiveness in evaluating the impact of the P4P
pilot; distinction was made between minimum data required to assist project management and timely decision-making, versus
the data required for impact evaluation.

Learning from country-specific annual reviews:
National annual reviews of P4P were conducted in Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone and Tanzania during the first quarter of 2011.
Main lessons learned include:

•        Payments to farmers: In Tanzania, it was noted that it had taken too long to pay the farmers – around three
         months from the time farmers delivered their commodities to their Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) until
         they were paid by WFP. It is recommended that the frequency of partial payments is increased and the tonnage per
         contract reduced for organisations with low capacity. The possibility for employing advance payments will also be

•        Timing of purchases: In Sierra Leone, it was recommended that contracts with suppliers should start in small
         quantities and be signed close to delivery dates. In Tanzania, purchases should take place soon after harvest to target
         smallholders and avoid elite capture. The challenge is to match optimal purchasing period with pipeline needs and cash

•        Purchase modalities: In Burkina Faso, the implementation of forward contracts for both sorghum and maize was the
         focus of the review, analyzing the financial, technical and operational implementation of contracts by FOs and partners.
         In Tanzania, forward contracts will also be explored in 2011.

•        Price and market information: It is difficult to assess whether farmers in Tanzania receive an equitable market
         price as market information systems are not well developed at the local market level. In Sierra Leone, rice marketing is
         still at a preliminary stage because the price is not yet determined based on an analysis of production costs and profit
         margins. As labour costs are significant, margins from the sale of milled rice need to be carefully studied and better
Page 5                                                                                                                 ISSUE 31

Exchange visits between P4P countries
Over the past quarter, P4P team members, together with partners, conducted exchange visits to other P4P countries to learn
about different approaches and exchange best practices and lessons learned.
Kenya to Mali
P4P Kenya together with key partner staff (AGMARK, CGA and AMPATH) visited Mali in March. The team visited several
farmers’ organisations which are in general more advanced there than in Kenya. Key lessons learned from the visit are that
i) the level of organization/trust of groups is a major factor to successful aggregation and delivery, and that ii) forward
contracting may be a particularly suitable procurement modality.
Rwanda to Uganda
Requested to advise the Government on how to establish Warehouse Receipt Systems (WRS) in Rwanda, WFP organized a
study tour to Uganda together with the MINAGRI. The group included P4P staff, representatives from the Ministries of Trade
and Agriculture, farmers and other partners. The team visited various farmers’ organisations and warehouses and was excited
to learn about private sector participation in the development of the agricultural sector, including WRS, in Uganda.
South Sudan to Uganda
The P4P Country Coordinator for South Sudan visited Uganda in January to i) learn about the operation of satellite collection
points, ii) build operational bridges with P4P Uganda, and iii) better understand the cross country market dynamics. The
productivity issues identified in SS are similar to what smallholders experience in parts of Uganda - and comparative studies
regarding production costs and value chains could be constructive for both pilots.

FAO Publication: Good Practices In Building Rural Development Institutions

“Continued population growth, urbanization and rising incomes are all likely to continue to put pressure on food demand.
International prices for most agricultural commodities are set to remain at 2010 levels or higher, at least for the next decade
(OECD-FAO 2010). Higher prices should represent an opportunity to be seized for small producers, for whom “about three
quarters of all rural household income in Sub-Saharan Africa comes from agriculture” (Using agricultural growth to fight
poverty, FAO, Ghanem, Matuschke, Wiebe, 2010). Nevertheless, as FAO’s 2009 State of Food and Agriculture explains, small
producers were unable to take advantage of the opportunity that the rise in agricultural commodity prices represented.

Overcoming constraints
The prospects for small producers from developing countries to play a greater role in meeting the growing demand depends
on their capacities to access affordable inputs, information and competency and to deliver their output to the market. A
significant supply response requires a market system in which small producers are actively involved as actors. A broad variety
of institutional innovations have emerged in the past years, which contributed to reduce the barriers faced by small producers
to market entry while improving policy making. In this regard, a FAO recent review of good practices in building agricultural
and rural development institutions, “How to empower small-scale producers for increasing food security”, presents
a wide range of innovative experiences that small-scale farmers, fishers, forest users and stock-keepers have successfully
developed to seize economic and social opportunities, and ultimately, improved food security.

Innovating institutions
Through numerous examples, from around the globe, the case studies reviewed in this publication illustrate how a broad
range of different small producer organizations – self-help groups and grass-roots organizations, local and national associations,
and cooperatives enabled men and women, small-scale farmers, fishers, forest users and pastoralists to:
•      enhance their access to and management of natural resources,
•      overcome market constraints by improving their bargaining power and reducing transaction costs,
•      build their skills, competencies and improve their access to information and technologies,
•        engage in policy making and partnerships on a more equal footing with government and the private sector.
Within their organizations, small producers, once excluded, are now able to fully “play the game” participating fully in food
security and markets.

Keys to success
The publication highlights the role of small scale producers’ organizations in influencing the “rules of the game” as partners
with policy makers. By articulating their demands in a united, coherent and compelling way, small producers’ organizations
participate in the creation of an enabling environment, transforming policies in order to improve their production and
productivity, and ultimately increasing food security. This publication also highlights the critical need for small producers to
build an extended network of relationships, among themselves, within and between organizations, with market actors and
policy makers, and within institutional arrangements. With this network of relationships, small producers from developing
countries are enabled to play a major role in meeting the growing food demand in their local, national markets and beyond.”

Thanks to FAO for contributing this article. You can find this publication soon at the FAO’s ESW website:
Page 6                                                                                                                     ISSUE 31

KEY P4P CONTACTS IN ROME                                         P4P Country Coordinators/Focal Points
P4P COORDINATION UNIT                                            Asia
• Ken Davies, P4P Coordinator:                Afghanistan: Stephane Meaux <>
• Sarah Longford, Snr Programme Adviser, Partnerships:           Laos: Sengpaseuth <>                                         Regional Bureau Focal Point: Francois Buratto
• Mary-Ellen McGroarty, Snr Programme Adviser for Ethiopia,
  Kenya, Laos, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda &    Eastern, Southern & Central Africa
  Zambia:                           Democratic Republic of Congo: Melanie Jacq <>
• Jorge Fanlo, Snr Programme Adviser for Afghanistan, Burkina    Ethiopia: Enrico Pausilli <>
  Faso, DRC, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone & South Sudan:   Kenya: Martin Kabaluapa <>                                            Malawi: Tobias Flaemig <>
• Clare Mbizule: Snr Programme Adviser, M&E:                     Mozambique: Billy Mwiinga <>                                          Rwanda: Emmanuela Mashayo <>
• Alessia De Caterina, Reports/M&E Officer:                      South Sudan: Marc Sauveur <>                                     Tanzania: Dominique Leclercq <>
• Blake Audsley, Market Analyst:           Uganda: Elvis Odeke <>
• Tobias Bauer, Communications Officer:                          Zambia: Felix Edwards <>                                           Regional Bureau Focal Point: Simon Denhere
• Helen Kamau-Waweru, Finance Officer:
                                                                 WFP’s secondee to ACTESA: Simon Dradri <>
• Ester Rapuano, Snr Finance Assistant.:                         West Africa                                          Burkina Faso: Veronique Sainte-Luce <>
• Amanda Crossland, Snr Staff Assistant to P4P Coordinator:      Ghana: Hassan Abdelrazig <>                                       Liberia: Lansana Wonneh <>
• Kathryn Bell, Admin. Assistant:           Mali: Isabelle Mballa <>
• Alessia Rossi, Staff Assistant:          Sierra Leone: Miyuki Yamashita <>
                                                                 Regional Bureau Focal Point: Jean-Martin Bauer
PROCUREMENT DIVISION                                             <>
• Bertrand Salvignol: Food Technologist:                         Latin American & Caribbean                                     El Salvador: Hebert Lopez <>
• Van Hoan Nguyen: Food Technologist:                            Guatemala: Sheryl Schneider <>                                         Honduras: Nacer Benalleg <>
• Jeffrey Marzilli: P4P liaison:        Nicaragua: Francisco Alvarado <>
• Laila Ahadi: Procurement Officer:          Regional Bureau Focal Point: Laura Melo <>

Suggested reading
   •        Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, April 2011 Getting Down to Business: Scaling Up Agricultural
            Development in Africa, summary report on the 2011 US-Africa Forum
   •        World Bank April 2011: “Missing Food: The case of postharvest losses in Sub-Saharan Africa"
   •        Report on the rice market in West Africa: Crise rizicole, évolution des marchés et sécurité alimentaire, Avril 2011

• 3 - 7 May, Global Child Nutrition Forum in Nairobi: Scaling Up Sustainability: Linking School Feeding with Agricultural De-
  velopment to maximise Food Security.
• 11 May, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) seminar in Bern on employment and income generation
  through innovative market development approaches. P4P Coordinator will present on P4P Afghanistan.
• 9-18 May: Fourth UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LCD-IV), Istanbul, Turkey.
• 22-25 May, ICRISAT Tropical Legumes II: Improving Livelihoods of Smallholders project regional meeting, Lilongwe, Malawi.
• 23-24 May, ICRW/ILRI workshop - Role of gender in agricultural value chains and the role gender analysis can play in
  improving agriculture program effectiveness and outcomes for women, Nairobi, Kenya.
• 24 May, Chicago Council Symposium on Global Agriculture and Food Security: Progress to Date and Strategies for Success,
  Washington DC.
• 25 May, FAO-AGS (Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division) meeting between P4P Country Coordinators
  attending Mid-Term Evaluation debriefing.
• 26-27 May, Overseas Development Institute debrief on Mid term Evaluation findings and recommendations, WFP HQ,
• 30 May – June 2, first Procurement processes and market analysis training in support of LRP / P4P food procurement for
  WFP staff, Mombasa (for CO Procurement, VAM and P4P staff).

                   The update is published by the P4P Coordination Unit in Rome, Italy. Contact us at
                            External: Internal:

Shared By: