The effects of institutional and political changes on West African FOs and adaptation strategies

1. Inter-network – Project to build the agricultural, food and rural policy capacity of networks of agricultural organisations The effects of institutional and political changes on West African FOs and adaptation strategies Lessons to be drawn from the experiences of the Faso Farmers’ Federation (CPF) and the Federation of Producers’ Unions of Benin (FUPRO)

2. Context of the knowledge building • The FOs are increasingly being encouraged by governments, donors or the market to organise themselves based on sectors • The ‘general’ or ‘cross-cutting’ FOs are receiving less and less support despite the essential role that they play in supporting family farms.

3. Questions • How has the organisational structure of these FOs changed in this context? • What strategies have they used to adapt? • What impact has this had on the capacities of FOs to defend the interests of and deliver services to family farmers?

4. Study method and organisation • Retrospective analysis of the institutional changes within two umbrella organisations and two member FOs. • Analysis of the impact of these changes on FO ability to carry out varied remits. • Two-stage process: • Internal FO workshop. • External one-week mission to each FO network.

5. 1. Analysis of changes to FOs Main facets of the institutional changes and their impact on the FOs

6. 1. The FUPRO network in Benin Initially FUPRO was based around the cotton sector • Key economic and political player (1990s): • Importance of cotton to the country’s economy. • FOs heavily involved in sector management and funded by it • Weakening (2000s): • State withdrawal, proliferation of private sector players, parallel networks, the cotton crisis. • Risk of the network breaking up, a drop in resources, reduced political role.

7. Other sectors’ structuring dynamic (2000s) • Agricultural policy promoted: • New growth sectors as an alternative to cotton • Players to be structured into professional groupings • FUPRO set in motion this process in order to: • Balance out the space given to non-cotton regions and reinforce network cohesion • Rebuild financial and political foundations • Projects/donors: • Encourage sector-based FOs to emerge and become independent • Neglect general FOs

8. The impact on the FOs and producers • Better targeted and more effective services to non-cotton producers • But a structuring process carried out too early or driven artificially creating division within the movement • Geographically-based FOs seeking to forge mutual links and a weakening of coordination between network FOs.

9. 2. FOs in Burkina Faso Generally structured at the outset • A small farmers’ movement developed initially on a more community-based and multi-functional basis (1970s – 1990s) – FENOP was founded in 1994. • Creation of more specialised umbrella organisations (FEPAB, FNJPAB, UNPCB etc) but with a national consultation framework (CPF in 2002).

10. FOs reorganised into sectors (1990s-2000s) • The cooperative law: • Encourages FO to turn into sector-based cooperatives at all levels • Promotion of interprofessional bodies: • A very restricted definition of the sector concept (one single product) • Focuses on export sectors at odds with the FOs • Projects/donors: • Focus their support on strictly economic activities

11. The impact on the FOs • At the grassroots: • Little reorientation of activities • Weakening of grassroots organisations • At national level: • The FOs restructured (FEPAB split into two umbrella organisations) or changed their activities (Federation of Young Agricultural Professionals) • ‘Opportunistic’ FOs were created and competed with the established FOs • Flagship FOs lost their political clout (FENOP)

12. Conclusion • Structural division of remits between FOs: • Services versus trade union activities • General versus product-specialised • A divisive factor in the small farmers’ movement and resulted in the weakening of political initiatives

13. 2. FO strategies to link up their sector and general remits

14. New organisation Nouvelle organisation Former organisation Ancienne organisation FUPRO FUPRO National level Federation Sector URP URP Regional level URP Sector UCP UCP District level UCP Sector GV GV Village level 1. In Benin A new structuring process to more effectively link up geographical and sector-based FOs.

15. Current challenges faced by FUPRO • Reinforce network cohesion: rebuild a shared vision and project from grassroots level • Review the complementary nature of geographical and sector-based FO services. • Replace / train new leaders

16. 2. In Burkina Faso Varied solutions • At CPF level: • Creation of regional multi-stakeholder consultation platforms • The example of FEPPASI: • The incorporation of varied remits within a single FO: economic yet multi-sector, social and trade union remits • Integrated farm approach (farm advice service)

17. Current challenges faced by CPF • Strengthen existing regional platforms and create new ones • Develop systems for delivering general services • Boost its advocacy capacity

18. 3. Lessons learned from these changes

19. The concept of a ‘sector-based approach' encompasses different debates • Promotion of agribusiness as opposed to family farming • Farm specialisation rather than diversification • Sector models (administered, integrated, liberalised) • Focus FO work on economic initiatives and therefore limit their political role? • In each case, a need to clarify the terms of the debate between the players.

20. Does sector-based structuring allow FOs to deliver the services that producers are looking for? • Better targeted and more effective economic services • However, essential general services are neglected • Fragmentation of resources and placing FOs into competition with each other limits the scope of their work • Choice of priority sectors for support is sometimes questionable

21. Does sector-based structuring allow FOs to continue to defend the interests of family farming? • Sector segmentation is contributing to the political marginalisation of FOs: • Energy is wasted and debates are compartmentalised • Juxtaposition of sector support: a loss of coherence in FO initiatives • Proliferation of resource and leader training requirements • The risk of being politically diluted / divided • Only some categories of small farmers are given support

22. 4. Points for consideration by FOs and their partners

23. (Re)develop varied remits within a network • Reaffirm the need to provide the following remits: • Product-based / general • Services: economic / social / trade union / local development • Facilitate coordination between sector and general FOs • Identify stimulating projects. • Leave room for experimentation and local adaptation of structuring and specialised or general services. • Use different funding strategies based on the remit in question.

24. Reaffirm the importance of having a general approach • Reaffirm the benefits for partners of supporting general FOs: role in the development of family farming. • Need for long-term support to build FO and their HR capacities. • Put general issues back at the heart of the debate on the State’s role in rural development.

25. Thank you for listening