Date: 4 January, 2013
Comments on the Zero Draft of HLPE Study on Smallholder Investments
(Abdul Razak Ayazi, Permanent Representation- Afghanistan)
First I wish to make some general observations on the zero draft of the study and then
address the three topics on which comments are requested by the HLPE Team, as
well as reflecting on section 5 of the study (Recommendations).
General Comments
The study is wide-ranging and contains useful material on principal issues relevant to
the investment needs of sustainable smallholder agriculture. The search conducted
by the HLPE Team on this study is indeed extensive and praiseworthy.
However, as a policy-oriented document the structure of the study needs
improvements. In its present form, the text reads like an academic paper, which is
obviously not the intention. The membership of CFS wish to be advised on key
policy recommendations that are most suitable for improving the production and
productivity of sustainable smallholder agriculture for different ecological systems.
With this purpose in mind, the balance between broader and circumstantial issues and
those germane to the development of sustainable smallholder agriculture needs a
fresh look, with the aim of increasing the weight of the latter in the study.
The section on Conclusions (which has not yet been written) should come before
section 5 and should focus on substantive issues, thereby leading the way to a few
key recommendations.
Section 5 (Recommendation) should be made shorter and more focused. The essence
of each of the 9 recommendations proposed needs to be expressed in a straight
forward manner and in simple language, so the reader would know exactly what each
recommendation entails.
The Three topics
1. Definition and significance of smallholder agriculture: is the approach in
the report adequate?
For a policy-oriented study, the definition of “smallholder agriculture”, which also
includes small fishers and indigenous forest dwellers, should be crisp and concise.
1
The three paragraphs of sub-section 1.1, when taken together, reflect a definition that
is somewhat diffused. Recognizing that the definition of smallholder varies from
region to region, from country to country and from location to location within a
country, the symptoms are nevertheless commonly shared.
On the global scale, smallholders, who practice intensive and diversified agriculture,
are large in numbers, asset- poor, prone to exploitation, least beneficiaries of public
services, most vulnerable to shocks, facing a wide range of socio-economic and
technical constraints and struggling to survive in a global economy from which they
hardly benefit.
Given the policy nature of the study, sub-section 1.2 (How small is small) can be
shortened and perhaps limited to the salient features of Figure 2 and Figure 3. This
reduction will in no way diminish the importance of the valuable conclusion shown in
bold letters on page 22 of the study.
To provide a geographically balanced oversight on policy for smallholder agriculture,
it may be advisable to also include in sub-section 1.3.2 (Policy concerns) one or two
initiatives taken from Asia and the Pacific Region, where 87% of the world’s
smallholder farmers live. Similarly, an example from Latin America and the
Caribbean would be most appropriate because in that continent the profile of
smallholder is different than in the land-scare continent of Asia.
Sub-section 1.4, which represents historical trends in the average size per holding for
3 countries (India, France and Brazil), may not be that representative of the global
picture. It would be advisable to show a single chart based on the last three or four
censuses showing the evolution in the size of holdings for at least 10 small, medium
and large countries in different regions and then attempt to make some comparisons,
if feasible. Consideration could also be given to placing sub-section 2.5 after subsection 1.4 because the two sections are to a large extent complementary.
The significance of smallholder agriculture is fairly well substantiated in Section 2.
That said, it may be advisable to also mention milling in sub-section 2.1.2 due to its
importance in rural areas and open a new sub-section on the contribution of
smallholder agriculture to rural employment, as this aspect is highly significant and
needs a separate treatment. In Box 4 on pages 34-35, mention should also be made to
the third category of family farms that hire some labour on permanent basis. While
this category accounts for only 6% of the 15 million family farms in LAC, it
cultivates 25% of the most productive land of the 400 million hectares of family
farms.
2
2. Framework for smallholder agriculture and related investments: is the
typology useful, adequate and accessible for the problem at hand?
Section 3 should present the investment framework most appropriate to smallholder
agriculture. The existing text is not well focused on this issue and what is presented is
somewhat academic. Generally speaking, the five types of capital/assets listed on
pages 37-38 (Human, Social, Natural, Physical, Financial) equally applies to medium
and large size holdings, though the mixture may differ between the three types of
landholdings according to their specific characteristics and requirements.
For investment in smallholder agriculture, three ways of asset creation are crucial,
namely:
(i)
family labour for on-farm development (basically soil improvement; better
use of family labour in improving animal productivity through
crop/livestock integration; creation of home-based gardens; on-farm
improvements that would increase water efficiency for crops, trees and
livestock; and preservation of genetic resources);
(ii)
community labour used in creating physical and human assets beneficial to
smallholders as a group (erosion control, terracing, drainage, water
harvesting, improved range management, construction of community
owned wells, storage, on-farm roads, centres for cooperative and farmer
organization, facilities to enable the group employment of women and the
development of skills for young boys and girls);
(iii)
Public goods that gives an upward shift to the technological frontier most
suitable for smallholder (roads connecting smallholders to nearby markets,
small and medium irrigation schemes, electricity, public education,
sanitation, health services, affordable financial services and communication,
more or less on the model practiced in China and some other developing
countries). Public-private partnership in research and extension and
building on traditional knowledge are also considered as important public
goods.
Corporate investment has a role to play in the development of smallholder
agriculture, provided the benefit sharing arrangements are carefully worked out for
the benefit of both parties, a subject matter that presumably will be addressed in the
study on rai.
3
3. Constraints on smallholder investment: are all main constraints presented
in the draft? Have important constraints been omitted?
Generally speaking, section 4 (A Framework for Smallholder Agriculture and
Investment) contains relevant conceptual material. However, the section attempts to
simultaneously cover context, constraints and potential solutions in mitigating the
negative impact of the constraints on production by smallholders and improving
household income. It may be advisable to keep the focus of section 4 on constraints
to investment and their typology and placing context and potential solutions to other
sections of the study.
Nevertheless, the good features of section 4 are:
 Underscoring the complete absence or severe limitation of legal protection for
smallholders and their political and economic underweight within their
respective social environments. The writings of Mr. Olivier de Schutter, the
United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, could be used to
substantiate legal protection for smallholders;
 A very good assessment of the three types of risks facing smallholder
agriculture and their interaction (sub-section 4.3);
 A good exposé of the policy disincentives (sub-section 4.4);
 An excellent presentation of typology of smallholder according to the interplay
of 3 essential factors: assets, markets and institution, especially Box 9 on page
54.
The assessment is comprehensive, issue-oriented and with focus on policy issues. I
cannot think of any important thing to add.
Section 5 ( Recommendations)
Section 5 is too lengthy and the recommendations are somewhat lost within the
expansive text. For example, what exactly is being recommended under 5.2.1? Is it
that smallholder should have full access to all public services as listed in lines 4-9 of
the first paragraph on page 58? If so, it needs to be concise and precise.
That said, the 9 recommendations (4 addressing the constraints facing smallholders, 3
focusing on specific priority domains and 2 related to implementation strategy) are
undoubtedly pertinent and strategic in nature. Avoiding a plethora of
recommendations is also commendable. The question is the presentation of the
recommendations in short and unambiguous language. It would be very helpful if
each of the 9 recommendation can be supplemented with one or two country-based
experience, like Box 10 on yields, page 59, and Box 11 on Rabobank, page 51.
4
5