poverty international policy centre for inclusive growth number 24 · 2019-11-11 · 2...

Poverty Number 24

International Policy Centre for Inclusive GrowthPoverty Practice, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP

The Role of South-South Cooperation in Inclusive

and Sustainable Agricultural Development

Focus on Africa

2 International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth

G U E S TE D I TO R S

Focus on Africa: Making South-South Cooperation on Agricultural

development more inclusive and sustainable

With Rio+20 only a week away, the theme of this Poverty in Focus resonates clearly with thebroader discourse on sustainable development, in particular the expanded efforts to mainstreaminclusion and equity and to improve institutional frameworks for sustainable development.The United Nations Development Programme’s first Africa Human Development Report,launched on 15 May 2012, highlights the extent to which recent growth in Africa has neithersufficiently reduced extreme poverty and hunger nor provided the number and scopeof opportunities envisioned. One of its key messages is a call for more investment inagriculture to ensure both sustained growth and poverty reduction.

The evidence is clear. We need new mechanisms, approaches and tools to address anever-increasing combination of deeply embedded inequalities and new variationsof instability and unsustainability.

The international seminar on the Role of South-South Cooperation in Agricultural Developmentin Africa held on 17 May in Brasília served as an important space for dialogue to exploresome of these issues, specifically in the context of agricultural futures and in the broadercontext of development. Emerging clearly was the conviction that South-South Cooperation,as a mechanism, could be catalytic, if well designed and harnessed, effectively shaped anddefined within a context of exchange, mutual benefits and learning.

With the increasing attention on both the inclusivity of growth and its environmentalsustainability, now being framed in the context of inclusive green growth, more reliance is alsolikely to be placed on South-South Cooperation in defining a number of answers to the ‘how’.

As the Government of Brazil hosts Rio+20, attention also falls on the country’s role as a broker forsuch forms of South-South exchange, particularly on models which can deliver triple wins for theeconomy, society and the environment. A number of successes in reducing inequality, enhancingboth social and productive inclusion and, in particular, engaging smallholder farmers in thegrowth process while also maintaining a successful commercial agriculture sector are amongthe important lessons/entry points for Brazil-Africa exchange in this context. At the sametime, successes and innovations are also emerging from sub-Saharan Africa, in discrete flagshipprogrammes, policies and in sectors. Thus far, there has been less discussion about bi-directionalflows of good practice, lessons learned and technology transfers than the current reality merits.

This Poverty in Focus, designed as a value-added output of the May 17 seminar, gives specific voiceto the above, as well as some of the challenges and opportunities facing South-South Cooperationas a tool for ‘development’ and not just development cooperation. This opportunity to discussagriculture not just as a sector but as a force for development, for poverty reduction, food security,for greater cooperation within the South, and for greater lessons from the South to emerge onthe international landscape builds on other similar efforts and discussions in 2012. It resonateswith a key motto of one of our coordinating partners—agriculture is a key pathway out of poverty.

Looking forward, the nexus between agriculture and development highlights two key issues:eliminating hunger and rethinking agriculture, in light of sustainability and equity. Climate change,livelihoods and food security, in particular, represent both challenges and opportunities forachieving these two objectives, and many questions do remain.

It is the role of knowledge-based institutions, such as IPC-IG, the Futures Agricultural Consortium,CIRAD, Articulação Sul, with the support of DFID and UN Women, and in partnership with theWorld Food Programme (WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) and the African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC), to probe and critically assess towards agreater understanding of both the potential and limits of South-South Cooperationand to identify potential answers to urgent policy questions.

It is our hope that the approach taken in the seminar and this Poverty in Focus defines a new scopefor critical and inclusive policy dialogue, while shining a brighter light on some of the underlyingdevelopment questions of our time, including how to maximise Africa’s incredible natural,social and cultural wealth into a source of sustainable growth for all its citizens.

by Jorge Chediek,

Interim Director, IPC-IG

The Poverty in Focus is a regular publicationof the International Policy Centre for InclusiveGrowth. The purpose of this edition is to presentthe findings of research and dialogue on inclusiveand sustainable development, in the context ofSouth-South Cooperation in Agricultural Developmentin Africa. Support is provided from the UKDepartment of International Development (DFID).

Guest EditorsLeisa Perch, IPC-IG; Ammad Bahalim,

ICTSD/IPC-IG; Lidia Cabral, ODI;

and Alex Shankland, IDS

Desktop PublisherRoberto Astorino

Copy EditorThe WriteEffect Ltd., Oxford, UK

Front page: People, Policies, and Institutions isthe spirit behind this Poverty in Focus. The imagesrepresent the range of issues, the people, processesof collaboration which lead to progress and thepossibilities for solutions to work side-by-side.The duality between the micro-economy and themacro-economy and commercial and small-farmeragriculture also comes through, suggesting theneed for careful analysis, a diversity of instrumentsand multiple approaches.

Images 2 and 3 are from the IPC-IG “HumanizingDevelopment” Global Photography Campaign(photographers respectively: Siena Anstis andRolando Villanueva). Image 1, John Nyberg;Image 4, Igor Spanholi; Image 5, Maciej Pawlik;Image 6, Daniel Battiston and Image 7, AmalManikkath. Stock.xhcng, <http://www.sxc.hu>.

Editors’ note: IPC-IG is grateful to the co-editorialteam and to Dan Bradley, UKDFID Brazil, for hisinspiring ideas.The contribution of the InternationalCentre for Trade and Sustainable Development(ICTSD) in supporting the coordination of the PIFmust also be mentioned. Our sincere appreciationalso to all of the authors for their generouscontributions of intellectual inputs and timewithout monetary remuneration.

IPC-IG is a joint project between the United NationsDevelopment Programme and Brazil to promoteSouth-South Cooperation on applied povertyresearch. It specialises in research-based policyrecommendations on how to reduce poverty andinequality. IPC-IG is directly linked to the PovertyGroup of the Bureau for Development Policy,UNDP and the Government of Brazil.

Interim IPC-IG DirectorJorge Chediek

International Policy Centre for Inclusive

Growth (IPC-IG), Poverty Practice,Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP

Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco O, 7º andar70052-900 Brasilia, DF Brazil

[email protected] www.ipc-undp.org

The views expressed in IPC-IG publications arethe authors’ and not necessarily those of theUnited Nations Development Programme orthe Government of Brazil.

Rights and Permissions – All rights reserved.The text and data in this publication may be reproduced aslong as written permission is obtained from IPC-IG and thesource is cited. Reproductions for commercial purposesare forbidden.

Poverty in Focus 3

Overview: Agricultural Futures and theRole of South-South Cooperation

by Leisa Perch, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growthand Daniel Bradley, DFID1

New forms of South-SouthCooperation led by emerging growthpoles such as Brazil and China areredefining international developmentcooperation. Impressive domesticresults of Brazil and China in boostinggrowth and tackling domestic poverty—including through the role of agriculture—give them a certain credibility withdeveloping country partners who areseeking the same success.

As the UN Special Rapporteur on the rightto food highlighted, “the most pressingissue regarding reinvestment in agricultureis not how much, but how” (De Schutter,2010). South-South Cooperation offerspotentially useful perspectives on ‘how’agricultural development might take somesteps forward. It is appealing on manylevels, breaking down traditional donor-recipient roles in partnerships betweencountries offering mutually relevantexperience. The emergence of newdevelopment actors opens up differentchoices of development tools and formsof institutional relationships. This givesdeveloping countries more diverseoptions regarding the kind of partnership—and future—that they wish to pursue.

South-South Cooperation is, therefore, auseful shot in the arm for developmentthat helps all development actors toreconsider their approaches. But as withdevelopment in general, it is not a caseof ‘out with the old and in with the new’.South-South Cooperation is, in manysituations, largely unproven; the evidencebase for its impact on reducing povertystill largely unwritten. This edition ofPoverty in Focus provides a space forcritical reflection on South-SouthCooperation, to inform debate on howthis promising development tool can bebest applied to help us move towardsmore productive, inclusive andsustainable agricultural futures.

Part of the value of South-SouthCooperation is its role in empoweringcountries to look in more depth athome-grown rather than externallydriven responses to tough developmentproblems. The Comprehensive AfricaAgricultural Development Programme(CAADP), a home-grown framework,represents a foundation for both howAfrica may approach a number of theseissues and what it wants to achieve. Andnoteworthy policy reforms for sociallyaccountable access to natural resourceshave emerged in Africa, Latin Americanand Asia (Khoday and Perch, 2012).These seek to address structuralinequalities as well as betterenvironmental stewardship.

Such innovation in the South is vitalto generate new tools and partnershipsfor tackling critical social, economicand environmental problems.Business as usual is not going todeliver at the pace and scale required.With regard to agricultural and broaderrural development, a series of key‘gaps’ remain to tackling povertyeffectively, including:

the productivity gap – productivitygrowth has stagnated in manycountries where its potential to driveinclusive growth are needed the most;

the food and nutrition gap – globally,one in seven people have insufficientaccess to adequate food and nutrition;the rate is closer to one in three insub-Saharan Africa, despite theagricultural potential of muchof the continent; and

the energy gap – 75 per cent ofsub-Saharan Africa and 90 percent of its rural population still lackaccess to electricity. The approach tomeeting this gap will have significant

1. The authors are the Team Leader – Rural andSustainable Development, IPC-IG and First Secretary,Climate and Development, DFID Global Partnerships,Brazil, respectively.

We also want to thank Josique Lorenzo, Pablo Burkolterand Thais Fernandes for their assistance and support tothe preparation of this Poverty in Focus.

This edition of Poverty in

Focus provides a space

for critical reflection on

South-South Cooperation,

to inform debate on how

this promising development

tool can be best applied to

help us move towards

more productive,

inclusive and sustainable

agricultural futures.

Approaches that recognise

smallholder farmers offer a

potential win for inclusion,

but it remains to be seen

whether pro-smallholder

models can be applied in

different contexts.

As with development

in general, ‘adaptation

to context’ must be

a key principle of

South-South Cooperation.


implications for carbon emissions ingeneral and the carbon intensity ofthe agricultural sector in particular.

These critical gaps will be exacerbatedby the effects of climate change and

variability, which threaten to make toughdevelopment problems even tougher.Agriculture is particularly sensitive toclimate, and higher temperatures, shortergrowing seasons, changing rainfallpatterns and extreme events willhit poor people hardest.

The article by Tom Owiyo of UNECAhighlights the need for a long-termagenda of climate-compatibledevelopment in Africa, which requires thatdevelopment is sustainable, resilient andequitable. This is echoed by a collectivearticle by representatives of AWAN andUNDP South Africa, which also highlightsthe critical and often under-valued roleand leadership capacity of women.

An article by three Brazilian rural women(Justina Cima, Jomar Amaral and SandraMaria da Silva) highlights commonstruggles but warns against generalisingthe experience, challenges and potentialof rural women. Their diverse stories alsoreveal how distinct factors combineto exclude, marginalise and createstructural barriers to progress.

This need to focus on local realities ispicked up by four African researchers(Kojo Amanor, Sérgio Chichava, BlessingsChinsinga and Langton Mukwereza) asthey take a critical view of South-SouthCooperation to-date and advocate for ahorizontal process of two-way exchangethat benefits both sides. Africa is notsimply a recipient of assistance—Africancountries have not been idle (Sibanda,2011) and their innovations too can bevaluable to the broader South.

African countries have also been activein looking for successful examplesof boosting agricultural productivity.Articles by Radhika Lal, Ryan Nehringand Ben McKay as well as DaranaSouza and Israel Klug set out howBrazil has achieved impressive resultson this agenda by harnessing small-scalefarmers to achieve social and productiveinclusion. The resultant positive impactson poverty, inequality and food insecurity

offer significant lessons for Africa’scomplex development reality (IPEA, 2010).Brazil has been active in its response toAfrican demand, and its Food PurchaseProgramme (PAA) is already being sharedwith a number of African countries.

More broadly, cooperation on agricultureamong countries in the South potentiallycould deliver critical developmentoutcomes, both for the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and possiblyfor the emerging consensus aroundSustainable Development Goals.Gubo Qi’s review of China’s complexand long-standing relationship withAfrica presents a view of cautiousoptimism. Many lessons emergefrom the Chinese story despite thefundamental differences in approach.

The article by Frédéric Goulet andEric Sabourin contrasts the scale, scopeand evolution of Argentine and Brazilianapproaches to South-South Cooperation.They conclude that the dual smallholder/agribusiness model practised in bothcountries will be critical in definingthe impacts of policy as wellas technology transfers.

Approaches that recognise smallholderfarmers offer a potential win for inclusion,but it remains to be seen whetherpro-smallholder models can be appliedin different contexts. Although partsof Brazil share similar eco-climaticcharacteristics with much of sub-SaharanAfrica, Lidia Cabral and Alex Shanklandcaution against the wholesale transferof the Brazilian model to African soil,particularly because of important socialand institutional differences between theregions. As with development in general,‘adaptation to context’ must be a keyprinciple of South-South Cooperation.This will require flexibility in ‘learning bydoing’: articles by André Dusi and ThomasPatriota/Francesco Maria Pierri highlighthow this approach has been appliedand how programmes have evolved.

A development agenda drivenmore by the South is an appealingand progressive idea. Its effectivenesswill be judged by its results. To increasethe chance of those results beingpositive and transformational requirespotential partners to engage critically

with both the good practice and theweaknesses and challenges. For example,Adriano Campolina urges us to look atthe contradictions of Brazil’s agriculturalmodel, which has not always worked forevery part of society, nor for every pillarof sustainable development at all times.And Eunice Borges’s review of structuralgendered inequalities in the SouthernCone region highlights how good macromodels have still failed key groupsin the population.

Making development inclusive canbe a significant focus for lesson-sharingbetween Southern partners. AnabelMarin’s article on making NaturalResources Industries good for all inArgentina highlights the policy challengeof making economically entrenchedindustries, like agriculture, more inclusive.Key lessons resonate here for highlymineral- and natural-resource-dependentAfrican countries, where resource conflictscontinue to restrict access to land forlivelihoods. Bianca Suyama and Iara Leite’scontribution highlights the importanceof knowledge-based institutionsin driving a more inclusive dialogueprocess within Brazil and elsewhere.

In this series we have addressed somekey questions identified in Issue No. 20of IPC-IG’s Poverty in Focus series as well asconcepts highlighted in Issue No. 23,particularly on issues of socialsustainability. These include:

How can cooperation involvethe more direct participation of abroader set of African stakeholders,to ensure broad-based ownership ofpolicies as opposed to ideas imposedfrom the outside?

Can South-South Cooperationbe developmentally driven as well asa source of political solidarity?

Is it capable of shifting theparadigm and offering a bettermodel of development?

There is still much more to do andlearn before these questions can befully answered. There is an emergingconsensus that South-South Cooperationhas a greater contribution to make andcan help to inform continuous

Poverty in Focus 5

innovation in development policyand practice. Perhaps it has a specialrole to play in promoting empowermentand inclusion alongside growth andeconomic opportunity and in sharpeningour focus on a ‘value’ approach tocooperation built on a combinationof people, policies and institutions.

Happy Reading!

Andrade, M. (2010). ‘South-South

Cooperation: The Same Old Game or a NewParadigm?’, Poverty in Focus, No. 20, April

2010. Brasília, International Policy Centrefor Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG).

Perch, L. and Labbate, G. (2011). ‘Growth,

Gender, Poverty and Environment:Dimensions of Inclusive Development’,

Poverty in Focus, No. 23, November 2011.Brasília, IPC-IG.

Sibanda, L. (2011). ‘What Is Needed

to Ensure an Equitable Deal for Africanin COP 17’, in Growth, Gender, Poverty and

Environment: Dimensions of Inclusive

Development, Poverty in Focus No. 23.November 2011. Pps 32-35. Brasília, IPC-IG.

Khoday, K and Perch, L. (2012).

“Development from Below: SocialAccountability in Natural Resource

Management”. Working Paper No. 91,February 2012. Brasília, IPC-IG.

United Nations General Assembly, Human

Rights Council (2010). Report submitted bythe Special Rapporteur, Olivier De Schutter,

on the right to food. New York, NY,United Nations.

Despite limited progress

within the United Nations

Framework Convention

on Climate Change

(UNFCCC), African countries

still need to urgently

improve their agricultural

production systems and

address the challenges

of climate change and

climate variability.

Producing food in sufficient quantityand quality has never received as muchconcerted global attention as it has in thelast five years. A global food crisis side-by-side with the economic and financialcrises of 2008 revealed just how much theagricultural sector has been neglectedin the recent past. In most developingcountries, especially in Africa, investmentin the sector remained at just about 4per cent even though the sector providesjobs to the majority and contributes to30 per cent of gross domestic product(GDP). This has led to a substantialreduction in financing for agriculturalresearch programmes, extension servicesand capacity-building programmes ininstitutions of higher learning (FAO, 2010).The consequences have been a dearthof innovation, incubation, and poordissemination of new technologies.

With climate change and climatevariability, producing enough food forthe projected global population of 9billion people in 2050 must be done inways that are climate smart: that increasethe overall efficiency, resilience, theadaptive capacity and the mitigationpotential of the agricultural productionsystems (Ibid). Within the context ofgreen growth, such a transformation mustbe environmentally and economicallysustainable and socially inclusive.

In pursuing climate-smart agriculturalproduction systems, the differingobjectives and capacities of smallholderproducers must be clearly distinguishedfrom those of large-scale producers.The former form the majority in manyLess Developed Countries (LDCs), and—unlike the large producers—for them,agriculture is a source of livelihood aswell as of income. Africa’s smallholderproducers will likely bear the burdenof the effects of climate change, eventhough they contribute the least togreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As such, while the large-scale producersin developed countries (Annex I Parties)pursue programmes that promotemitigation, the smallholders in Africaand other LDCs need mechanisms thatenable them to adapt to the effects ofclimate change and climate variability.

Can South-South Cooperation Deliver Key

Answers to Africa’s Challenge on Climate-

Smart Agriculture and Green Growth?by Tom Owiyo, African Climate Policy Center (ACPC) 1

Making Agricultural Production Systems Climate

Smart Demands Sustained Attention in Three Main Domains:

generation and access to appropriate technologies;

establishment of an institutional and policy environment at local,national and regional levels; and

availability of appropriate financing mechanisms to promote uptakeof improved technologies at all levels.

1.Tom Owiyo is a Senior Specialist in Agriculture andClimate Change at the African Climate Policy Center(ACPC) of the UN Economic Commission for Africa.


To date, climate change negotiationshave not resulted in a specific workprogramme for agriculture. During theCommittee of Parties (COP) 17 in Durban,the Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SUBSTA) wasmandated by the parties to considerissues related to agriculture so that thesubsequent COP might adopt a decision.

This is a reflection of the wide divisionthat exists between the parties oncreating a specific work programmefor agriculture. Indeed, Annex I Partiesseem only keen to have a workprogramme under the framing ofmitigation and one with much lessemphasis on adaptation (Stabinsky, 2012).It is plausible that under mitigation, theyaim to compensate emissions reductionsin developing countries rather thancutting their own emissions. For their part,LDCs continue to insist that a significantemissions reduction is a prerequisite forthe success of adaptation programmes.Despite limited progress within theUnited Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC), Africancountries still need to urgently improvetheir agricultural production systems andaddress the challenges of climate changeand climate variability.

What can African countries

learn from the green revolution?

A strong institutional framework thatenhances the integration and coherenceof the National Action Plans forAdaptation (NAPAs) and the NationallyAppropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)with the national development strategiessuch as the Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers (PRSPs) is fundamental. At thecontinental level, African countries havetaken a number of reform initiatives—for example, the Comprehensive AfricanAgricultural Development Programme(CAADP). One of its key objectives isto promote public investments in theagricultural sector to about 10 per centof national budgetary expenditure.

This would reinvigorate support to thekey aspects of agricultural research andtechnological development, disseminationthrough extension services and provisionof necessary financial support to producersto adopt transformational productionpractices. Such a transformation

must essentially be at par with therequirements for a greener modelof growth—that is, low carbon, highlyresilient and socially inclusive—which willrequire approaches which focus not just onquantitative but also qualitative changes.

Climate-smart agricultural productionsystems can optimise the use of inputsand use efficient post-harvestmanagement. On the input side,many practical approaches exist for soiland nutrient management: the use ofimproved seeds, water use efficiency,pest and disease control mechanisms,improved livestock and fisheries systems,the use of improved genetic resourcesand ecosystem management. Access toand affordability of energy is also criticalfor the agricultural sector, especially forpost-harvest processing and to meetthe needs of smallholder producers,particularly subsistence farmers,many of whom are poor.

According to the UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), a keychallenge for many subsistence farmersin Africa is the depletion of soil qualityand poor nutrient availability (FAO, 2010).African governments must, therefore,support a suite of technological optionsthat includes soil amendments throughmineral and organic fertilisers andaccess to high-yield certified seeds.

Management of water resources isanother critical element of makingagricultural production in the continentclimate resilient. Indeed, with appropriatewater resource management and waterharvesting techniques, Africa couldsignificantly reduce the dual impact offloods and droughts that are frequentfeatures of the production landscape.Furthermore, with just under 4 per centof its agricultural production under

irrigation, Africa still has significantpotential to increase agriculturalproduction and productivity withoutnecessarily opening up more landto cultivation. Water, both availabilityand quality, and the potential challengesposed by climate variability and changewere among the issues raised byrepresentatives from African Embassiesat the ‘International Seminar on theRole of South-South Cooperation inAgricultural Development in Africa’held in Brasilia on 17 May 2012.

What can South-South Cooperation

offer a climate-dependent Africa?

A clear focus is needed on the keyunderlying challenges to production.Successful initiatives in one country arenot always immediately adaptable toanother. While it is often claimed thatBrazil shares much in common withAfrica, one significant difference is theamount of irrigated land as a percentageof arable land. Another is the access toand availability of technology andfinancing for innovation as well asexperimentation.

South-South Cooperation initiativescan potentially help to unpack someof Africa’s more persistent problemsincluding the coordination of thegeneration and sharing of climate sciencedata, improvements in the analyticalcapacity and the ready availability ofinformation to promote decision-makingon agricultural production.

As the FAO (2010) notes, the sustainabletransformation of the agricultural sectorwhich necessitates combined action onfood security, development and climatechange will come at significant costs.

The World Bank, for example, estimatesadaption in the agricultural sector indeveloping countries, alone, to costUS$2.5–2.6 billion a year between 2010and 2050 (World Bank, 2010). Manyinitiatives exist—for example, theCopenhagen Accord that committeddeveloped countries to provide US$30billion in fast-track start financing from2010 to 2012 (divided equally betweenadaption and mitigation). However, thecurrent performance of climate financingshows large gaps between resourcespledged, deposited and actually disbursed.

By blending differentfinancial resources, togetherwith innovative approachesAfrica will be able to exploitits huge potential forclimate smart agricultureand a green economytransformation.

Poverty in Focus 7

Moreover, available financing mechanismsneither facilitate nor make possiblesuch combined responses.

It is only by blending different financialresources, including national budgetaryallocations, private-sector financing,Official Development Assistance (ODA),and opening windows for agriculturein existing mechanisms such as theREDD+ and the Clean Development

Mechanisms together with newinnovative approaches that Africawill be able to exploit its huge potentialto make agriculture not only climatesmart but an integral part of itsgreen economy strategies.South-South Cooperation provides anumber of windows into the kind ofmechanisms and approaches that canunlock this potential and makeit a reality.

FAO (2010). Climate Smart Agriculture,

Policies, Practices and Financing for FoodSecurity, Adaption and Mitigation. Technical

paper for the Hague Conference held from31 October to 5 November 2010. Rome, FAO.

Stabinsky, D. (2012). ‘Agriculture and

Climate Change, State of play at theUNFCCC: Decisions from Durban Climate

Conference’, Briefing Paper, No. 63. Penang,Malaysia, Jean Macalister.

World Bank (2010). World Development

Report 2010: Development and ClimateChange. Washington, DC, World Bank.

Sustainable inclusive developmentis one of the most pressing realities ofthe 21st century, especially in thedeveloping world, where countries muststruggle to meet the needs of increasinggrowth within the context of sustainableagricultural practices. Agriculture notonly contributes to overall economicgrowth, but it is also a key source oflivelihoods and often the entry pointfor how countries can and do managenatural resources and the environment.Those engaged in agriculture are thecustodians of economic growth, foodsecurity and sustainable development.

Agriculture is also fundamental toeconomic development in sub-SaharanAfrica, where 417 million rural peoplelive in countries with agriculture-basedeconomies (World Bank, 2008). Studieshave observed that gross domesticproduct (GDP) growth that originates inagriculture is approximately four timesmore effective in reducing poverty thanGDP growth that originates outsidethe sector (Ibid). Currently, 30 to 40per cent of the continent’s total GDPand approximately 60 per cent of itstotal export earnings are directly linkedto agriculture (Ibid.). Most African womenreside in the rural areas where more than70 per cent of the continent’s poorpeople live (International Fund for

Agricultural Development, 2011).More broadly, even where agricultureis not the mainstay of the economy, it isstill the lynchpin of poverty reductionand inclusive growth. Often, the face ofsuch poverty and exclusion is female andrural; on average 65 per cent of Africansrely on agriculture as their primarysource of livelihood (Fan et al., 2009).

While much of the growth in agriculturalproduction in other heavily agriculture-dependent economies in developingand middle-income countries (MICs), inparticular Brazil, China and South Africa,is a result of big commercial farmingoperations, African agriculturaldevelopment has largely beenaccelerated by smallholder farmers.

Small-scale farmers are responsiblefor more than 90 per cent of Africa’sagricultural production (Ibid),and women make up 70 per centof smallholder farmers in sub-SaharanAfrica (IFAD, 2011). Women’s agriculturalactivity contributes not only to GDP butalso enhances food security by producingthe majority of food consumed inlocal households.

Estimates of women’s contribution to theproduction of food crops in sub-SaharanAfrica have ranged from 30 per cent in

African Women’s Leadership in Agribusiness:

a Force for More Inclusive Development andSouth-South Cooperation by Clara Ibihya 1 and Eunice Mwongera2 of AWAN

East Africa and Tonni Brodber, UNDP South Africa3

Agriculture not only

contributes to overall

economic growth, but

it is also a key source of

livelihoods and often the

entry point for how countries

can and do manage

natural resources and

the environment.

Regional networks such as

AWAN.EA also allow African

women smallholder farmers

to contribute to national,

regional and global practices

in agribusiness.

A study in Burkina Faso,

for example, links gender-

based restrictions on access to

labour and basic farm inputs

with a 30 per cent reduction

in yields on plots farmed

by women compared to

those maintained by men

(Meinzen-Dick, et al., 2011).

1. Chair of the Tanzanian Chapter of AWAN East Africa.

2. Chair of Kenya Chapter of AWAN East Africaand owner of Hillside Green Ltd.

3. Gender Adviser, UNDP Country Office for South Africa.


Sudan to 80 per cent in the Congo, whiletheir proportion of the economicallyactive labour force in agriculture rangesfrom 48 per cent in Burkina Faso to 73per cent in the Congo and 80 per cent inthe traditional sector in Sudan (FAO, 1993).

Therefore, the attainment of genderequality, especially through equal accessto resources, and the empowerment ofrural women engaged in agriculture arecritical elements of reducing poverty,reducing hunger through food securityand attaining meaningful inclusiveeconomic growth and sustainabledevelopment in sub-Saharan Africa.

From agriculture to agribusiness

Although African women are the guardiansof food security, and a crucial force withinthe agricultural sector, gender dynamicsand stereotypes (see Figures 1 and 2)often result in their marginalisation andstructural exclusion from the businessside of agricultural development.

Their minimal control over access toresources such as land, inputs such asimproved seeds and fertiliser, credit andtechnology hampers their capacity toleverage agricultural production intoa business opportunity. African womenface widespread restrictions on theirability to buy, sell or inherit land, opena savings account, borrow money or selltheir crops at market. They also are morelikely than men to lack access torudimentary basics of farming such asfertilisers, water, tillers, transportation,improved crop and animal varieties, andextension services. This directly affectscrop yields and productivity.4 A study inBurkina Faso, for example, links gender-based restrictions on access to labourand basic farm inputs with a 30 per centreduction in yields on plots farmed bywomen compared to those maintainedby men (Meinzen-Dick, et al., 2011).

The UN Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) estimates thatreducing these gender-based barriersglobally could increase total agriculturaloutput in developing countries by 2.5 to4 per cent and reduce the number ofhungry people in the world by 12 to 17per cent—or approximately 100 to 150million people (FAO, 2011). Such analysismakes a strong economic, productivity-

and capability-based case for theproductive and economic inclusion ofwomen, alongside more traditional andstill very valid social arguments.

While it is imperative that governmentsand development partners accelerateimprovements in agricultural productionand trade by reducing gender-basedbarriers and providing the necessarysupport for women’s small and medium-sized agribusiness enterprises, civilsociety and women’s organisations arealso critical stakeholders and key actorsin promoting and supporting theimportant transition of more Africanwomen in agriculture into agribusinessby overcoming institutional and culturalbarriers to rural women’s entrepreneurship.

The African Women AgribusinessNetwork (AWAN) was establishedin 2002 to respond to the increasingneed for African women to receive vitalinformation on trends, opportunities andchallenges in regional and internationalagribusiness. AWAN East Africa (AWAN.EA)is a regional organisation that servesmembers in seven countries across EastAfrica. It provides management training,technical expertise and networkingforums to build the capacity of womento succeed in the global agriculturaltrade by enhancing the quality andprofitability of their products in regionaland international markets.

Such links to international markets arebeing afforded through training as wellas collective enterprise development.For example, AWAN.EA is undertakinga joint programme to have an exporthouse by the name of ‘Da’bidii House’which is a fusion of two Swahili words‘Dada’ and ‘mwenyebidii’, meaning‘hardworking sister’. The brand namefor the house is ‘Ma’Mama’s Kitchen’as a strategy to meet volumes, especiallythe export market. Currently, plans arein place for 15 members from Kenya,Uganda, Tanzania and Ethiopia to betrained as part of the pilot start-upphase of the export house initiative.

Because of their consistent and directinteractions with the environmentthrough tasks such as gathering water,collecting firewood and farming, manywomen farmers in Africa are at the

forefront of innovation in adaptation toclimate change and sustainable farming.While agricultural technologies andknowledge that assisted farmers in China,Brazil, India and South Africa to boosttheir development have proven to bevaluable for smallholder farmers inother countries with similar challenges,African women smallholder farmers inless developed countries using networkssuch as AWAN.EA are also organisingto share their best practices acrossthe continent and globally toboost development.

Regional networks such as AWAN.EAallow African women smallholderfarmers to contribute to national, regionaland global practices in agribusiness.Through these networks, women areprovided with a platform to build theirown capacity further through partnershipswith networks of women farmers inother developing regions and countries.

The scope for such knowledge andexchange between Africa and otheractors in the South including Braziland China is now emerging, and therecent international seminar on therole of South-South Cooperation inAgricultural Development in Africa,in Brasilia, hosted by the IPC-IG, theFuture Agricultures Consortium andother partners, allowed small-scalewomen farmers from both Africa andBrazil to meet within the context of abroader forum on policy and development,to connect and to contribute.

Towards a greater role for social

innovations in South-South Cooperation

As both recipients and donors of aid, manyMICs understand the importance of aparticipatory approach to development.As a result, for the most part South-SouthCooperation in agriculture has consistedprimarily of MICs sharing technicaldevelopments, ranging from improvinglivestock breeds and health to foodprocessing technologies to more efficientwater use, with less developed countries.

Emerging experiences such as that of theInternational Crops Research Institutefor the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)5 inAndhra Pradesh in India demonstratehow women can use science to shiftfrom subsistence farming to successful

Poverty in Focus 9

agribusiness, sustainable developmentand poverty alleviation. Since access toscience and technology is challengingin rural areas, South-South Cooperationpotentially can do much more by makingmore explicit efforts to address capacityand access gaps. Globally linkingregional African networks such asAWAN.EA to networks in India, China andBrazil, including the bridging of variouslanguage divides, that can share successstories and better practices of engagingwomen smallholder farmers in scienceand technology would contributedirectly to the organisation’s goal totransform African women agribusiness.

Not only can further and increasedSouth-South Cooperation in such specificways contribute to better practicesrelated to science and technology, butsuch broader networks can also help tobuild additional good and social practiceby bridging the resource gap facingwomen farmers who are even moremarginalised because of disabilitiesand HIV and AIDS.

Additionally, high-level South-Southpolicy engagement among governmentsto highlight gender-responsiveagricultural policies that directly tackleeconomic marginalisation and unequalaccess to resources would accelerate andexpand public attention towards thecreation of an inclusive and enablingenvironment for women’s agribusiness.

International organisations, developmentpartners and governments also have apotentially pivotal role in facilitatingdialogue around such a role for South-South Cooperation, with triangularcooperation being one potential model,and in enhancing the scale and scopeof exchanges which promote capacity-building among social networks andincubators for women in smallholderagribusiness.

Critically, in a time of significant financialausterity, even greater focus is neededto ensure that women’s economic

empowerment is enabled by increasedaccess to inclusive finance as well as todevelopment financing that makes suchcritical exchanges on social innovationsfor economic empowerment possible.Organisations such as New Faces, NewVoices, a regional women’s organisationfounded on the belief that womenare an under-tapped resource andthat investing in women can havea significant development impactthat would accelerate economic growthon the African continent, are interrogatingthe structural and institutional barriersthat prevent women from accessingfinance. Greater collaboration betweenwomen’s organisations advocating forinclusive finance and those promotingwomen’s agribusiness is essential tocreate the necessary multiple effectsand catalytic change needed toeliminate structural inequalities.

Many challenges remain in securinginclusive sustainable development andeconomic stability for African countriesand developing countries more globally.While women, especially rural women,are often characterised by their acutevulnerabilities, they are also capableagents and a driving force for economic

4. As a result, female farmers produce a loweryield on their crops than male farmers by an averageof 25 per cent (IFPRI, 2011).

5. See: <www.icrisat.org>.

Source: UN Women, 2012a.

Source: UN Women, 2012b.


and sustainable development. Reducinggender-based barriers and promotingplatforms that increase the voice andparticipation of women in Africaand globally in agribusiness canresult in increased national growth andsustainable and equitable livelihoods.

South-South Cooperation fordevelopment, will of necessity, needto directly embrace these concepts andprinciples so that the developmentthrusts proposed, particularly inAfrican agriculture, are sustainedand sustainable.

Fan, S. et al. (2009). Policy Brief 12, Setting

Priorities for Public Spending for Agriculturaland Rural Development in Africa.

Washington, DC, International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI).

FAO (1995). Women, agriculture and rural

development: a synthesis report of theAfrican region. Rome, Food and

Agricultural Organization.

FAO (2011). The State of Food andAgriculture 2010–2011. Rome, FAO.

International Fund for Agricultural

Development (2010). Rural Poverty Report2011- New realities, New challenges:

new opportunities for tomorrow’sgeneration. Rome, International

Fund for Agricultural Development.

Meinzen-Dick, R. et al. (2011). Engendering

agricultural research, development, andextension. Washington, DC, International

Food Policy Research Institute.

UN Women (2012a). 2011–2012 Progressof the World’s Women. In Pursuit of Justice.

New York, NY, UN Women, 105, <http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf> (accessed 24 May 2012).

UN Women (2012b). 2011–2012 Progressof the World’s Women. In Pursuit of Justice.

New York, NY, UN Women, 104, <http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf> (accessed 24 May 2012).

World Bank (2008). The World DevelopmentReport: Agriculture for Development.

Washington, DC, World Bank.

With a continental size anda history marked by slavery andmigration, Brazil’s social make-up reflectscultural and ethnic plurality as well asracial inequality and other forms ofdiscrimination. Like other multiculturaland multi-ethnic societies, it hasmade significant advances but is stillchallenged by structural inequalities.

The authors of this article are anexample of this reality. Justina Cima,from the Movimento de MulheresCamponesas (MMC – Peasant Women’sMovement), Jomar Amaral, from theAssociação de Mulheres da Amazônia(AMA – Amazon Women’s Association)and Sandra Maria da Silva, from theCoordenação Nacional de Articulação dasComunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas(Conaq – National Joint Coordination ofthe Rural Black Quilombolas Communities),were in Brasília to express this individualand group-related reality which definesthe experience of rural women at thelocal/micro level.

They are unanimous when asserting thattheir individual experiences reflect thatof all Brazilian women. And they go

further: during the dialogue with Africanwomen at the international seminar onthe role of South-South Cooperationin African agricultural developmenton 17 May 2012, although there wereparticularities, they found many similarities.They concluded that the Brazilian women’songoing experience is also reflected inthat of women across the world.

When talking about rural women, itmust be recognised that this is not ahomogenous group, even within nationalborders. ‘Rural women’ as a collectiveterm used for policy dialogue capturesvery different ethnic groups and realities.This is why the perspectives of thesethree authors from different ethnicities—black, white and indigenous—are animportant addition to this editionof Poverty in Focus. It builds on an earlieredition on Indigenising Development.

Their statements and experiences directour understanding of the more ‘invisible’structural challenges and open up thedebate about the social and culturalcontexts for defining sustainability, foodsovereignty and recognition of women’swork and empowerment (see Figure).

Towards More Inclusive Agriculture –

A Common but Differentiated Reality:

Three Rural Women’s Experiences from Brazilby Justina Cima, Jomar Amaral and Sandra Maria da Silva

When talking about

rural women, it must be

recognised that this is not a

homogenous group, even

within national borders.

Peasants, environmentalists

and academics advocate

for change in the way that

agrarian, economic and

social projects are designed

and implemented, to better

ensure the sustainability and

survival of the planet

and the ecosystem.

Land expropriation by big

business (agro-business and

timber firms) highlights the

lack of effective protection

and legal means to protect

indigenous rights and

access to land.

Poverty in Focus 11

Source: Vital Voices and BlueCadet Interactive (2012)<http://www.vitalvoices.org/what-we-do/issues/economic-empowerment>.

Their contribution here grounds thebroader discussion about inclusivesustainable agriculture in the context ofracial inequality, gender discrimination,sexism and poverty, which define thereality for some in both Africa and Brazil.

A peasant woman’s perspective

Studying was Justina Cima’s dream duringher childhood. Born in an inner city of RioGrande do Sul, of Italian descent, she leftschool after the 5th grade, so she couldwork. Still young, she moved to the cityof Quilombo, in the extreme west of thestate of Santa Catarina, 581km fromthe capital, Florianópolis.

Justina has witnessed many political, socialand economic changes throughout the last30 years. During the military dictatorship,from 1964 to 1984, she observed the‘Green Revolution’—a programme toincrease agricultural production throughthe genetic improvement of seeds,intensive use of pesticides and large-scale monoculture. She also witnessedthe many social and environmentalimpacts caused by this input-extensiveagricultural model: the indebtedness ofsmall farmers, the increasing rural exodus,the concentration of land, the productionreserved for export, and a strong impacton the culture of traditional communitieswhose relationship with nature means thatagriculture and the extractive activitiesare not just productive activitiesbut a way of life.

Peasant farmers began to self-organise inassemblies and trade unions. They openedup the debate on land reform, social justice,the right to land, fair prices and socialsecurity rights. From 1982 to 1988, withother peasant women, Justina participatedin the processes of redemocratisation ofthe Brazilian political system.

Since 2000, a change of vision hasoccurred, with an increasing awarenessthat everyone belongs to the sameplanet. Peasants, environmentalists andacademics advocate for change in theway that agrarian, economic and socialprojects are designed and implemented,to better ensure the sustainability andsurvival of the planet and the ecosystem.

The collective consciousness ofpeasant women in Brazil has been

clearly articulated at national andinternational levels. MMC belongs to theLatin American and Caribbean networksand has maintained strong links withInternational Via Campesina, whichnow has a secretariat in Mozambique.

Justina believes that cooperationprojects among Brazil, South Africaand Mozambique are extremely positive,and MMC participates in these projects.She notes specifically: “This cooperationmust respect the culture of each placeand must be a knowledge exchange.”

The mutual benefits begin with theawareness that South-South Cooperationcannot be a passive relationship, in whichone actor teaches and the other one learns.The experience exchange is of utmostimportance. The definition of the modelto be shared is also a fundamental step.

Brazil is the world’s leading consumer ofpesticides, reaching 5.2 litres per personper year (Ministério Público do Estado doRio Grande do Sul, 2011). MMC supportsland reform and the shift away from themodel of commercialisation of naturalresources. It also endorses the creation ofadequate public policies and cooperationthat stimulate the use of traditionalseeds and diversified cultivationtechniques. On the issues of eradicatinghunger and poverty, MMC promotes adebate that goes beyond food andnutritional issues.

It also opposes exporting the greenrevolution model and requires the right tofood sovereignty. It considers it essentialto value women’s and youth labour, andit believes that the environment is asystem where everything is connected:the rural and the urban, transportationand the treatment of garbage, women’sempowerment and the fight againstdiscrimination. It believes that socialorganisations and social movements areindispensable to the promotion of socialtransformation which is at the heartof development cooperation in aSouth-South context.

A quilombola woman’s perspective

The Brazilian quilombos were createdas a strategy to counteract the structuralrealities of slavery. These communitiesof ex-slaves occupied lands which were

The mutual benefits(of South-South exchange)begin with the awarenessthat it cannot be a passiverelationship, in which oneactor teaches and theother one learns.

The gathering of quilombolawomen, discovering theirrights, making new contactswith feminist and peasantmovements and exchangingexperiences, have allenriched and strengthenedthe community.

To include rural womenin debates and cooperationprojects means havingactive voices that make theconnection between thestructural and the local, thetheoretical and the practical.

Women account for:


difficult to access, for obvious reasons atthe time. Now, in Brazil, there are quilombosin 25 Brazilian states. According to SandraMaria da Silva, from Minas Gerais, thereare 600 quilombolas communitiesregistered in Conaq.

The historical processes have beendifferent in each region, but, in general,land speculation, the illegal occupationof public land and the spread of agro-business have expelled a number ofcommunities from lands they occupied.

Sandra states: “It was easy to expel us.Suddenly, a landowner appeared. We wereconsidered people with no soul, withno land, with nothing. There was noperception that a crime or crimeswere being committed.”

At the age of 13, Sandra left hercommunity and moved to the big city, soshe could study and work. Her quilombo,called Carrapatos de Tabatinga1 is locatedat Bom Despacho, an inner city in thestate of Minas Gerais, 158km away fromthe capital, Belo Horizonte. In the capital,her dream was to become a lawyer, sinceshe wanted to serve as an advocatefor her community and their rights.When she was 24 years old, sheexperienced some hard times andreturned to her community tohelp her mother.

In 1984, a housing complex was built inthe middle of the quilombo, causing thedestruction of the community’s watersupply. Further deforestation causednegative impacts on local production.

At that time, the quilombola womenstarted to work as housemaids in thenew houses, often in horrible humanconditions. After many complaints ofabuse, Sandra tried to find supportat Via Campesina and at FundaçãoCultural Palmares.

The gathering of quilombola women,discovering their rights, making newcontacts with feminist and peasantmovements and exchanging experienceshave all enriched and strengthened thecommunity. Nowadays, children andyouth are aware of their rights from anearly age, and the community has zerotolerance for humiliation or racism.

According to Sandra, it is the womenwho remained in the community to takecare of their children and to ensure theirsurvival, and who continue to leadactivism in the movement. In 2005,they participated in the 1st Meetingof Quilombola Communities in MinasGerais, where the National Federationand Conaq also came into being.These changes also resulted in a rise in theself-esteem and self-determination ofthe quilombolas, but there is still a long wayto go. Their efforts focus significantly onprogrammes to empower women inrural areas, in political processes andin cooperative economic activities.

In 2011, Conaq developed a programmewith Artesãs do Mundo (Craftswomenof the World), in France, in which thepeasant women of Mali and Senegalalso participated. They have exchangedtraditional knowledge, debatedecological agriculture and sharedbest practices and difficulties of eachcommunity. The conclusions of thisexchange will be discussed at theRio+20 conference in Rio de Janeiro.“We learn the theory, but the practiceis a lot more important,” Sandra states,supporting the value of dialogueand exchange for development.

An indigenous woman’s perspective

To get to the city of São Gabriel daCachoeira, one needs to travel four daysin a boat that goes up to the Rio Negro,crossing 852km that divides the countyof the Amazon capital, Manaus. This iswhere Jomar Amaral, of the Dessanaethnicity, was born.

At the age of 13, Jomar went toManaus, where she worked as housemaidand finished her high school studies.One day she was making a speech to theAssociação de Mulheres Indígenas do Alto RioNegro (Association of Indigenous Womenfrom Alto Rio Negro) to tell them abouther experience, and that was when sheencountered for the first time thetending looms, bracelets, earrings,baskets and all the handicrafts madeby these women. These brought backmemories and a sense of commonidentify from her youth and hercommunity. This was her entry point intoindigenous and social movements, theCoordenação das Organizações Indígenas da

Amazônia Brasileira (Coiab – Coordinationof Brazilian Indigenous Organisationsfrom the Amazon) and her department ofindigenous women. Nowadays, she is amember of AMA, which covers nineBrazilian states and has 20 years ofexperience in fighting for indigenouspeople’s rights.

Jomar states that land expropriation bybig business (agro-business and timberfirms) highlights the lack of effectiveprotection and legal means to protectindigenous rights and access to land. Inher own region, São Gabriel da Cachoeira,there is a big forest area without anyform of agrarian development.

“The severing of their relationshipwith the land, the disrespect to theindigenous culture and tradition andmigration result in a disastrous culturaldisruption that ends up causingalcoholism, use of drugs, domesticviolence, prostitution and suicide amongthe communities. The violation of theiridentity also causes the loss of linguistichistory and of the accumulation ofknowledge and traditions that havepersisted over millennia, similar towhat happens with many African tribes.In the end, the fight for all of us women isthe same one,” Jomar asserts.

These statements show how economicempowerment and contact with women’sand feminist movements have made asignificant difference to their trajectories.Their participation in decision-makingspaces and in the construction of publicpolicies is reflected directly in their waysof thinking and acting. To include ruralwomen in debates and cooperationprojects means having active voicesthat make the connection betweenthe structural and the local, the theoreticaland the practical, to improve the lives andwell-being of those who need suchsupport the most.

Ministério Público do Estado do

Rio Grande do Sul (2011). ‘Perigo dosagrotóxicos é focado no documentário

“O veneno está na mesa”’,<http://www.mp.rs.gov.br/noticias/id26184.htm> (accessed 24 May 2012).

1. Carrapatos da Tabatinga,with images of Sandra Maria da Silva,<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eKi-7RMOMg>.

Poverty in Focus 13

The recent food price crisis and thecontinuing volatility in food prices haveunderscored the imperative to invest inagriculture and the need to adopt policiesto enhance access to food especially forpoor and vulnerable people. There is alsoa premium on technological options thatbetter utilise scarce natural resources andindustrial inputs as part of an ‘evergreen’revolution for sustainable agriculture.

These concerns are also reflected inthe South-South Cooperation agenda.A parallel focus is emerging on increasingproductivity via large-scale farmingcoupled with support to family orsmallholder farmers as a way of triallingsustainable technologies and addressinglocal food security and poverty reductionin rural areas.

Brazil’s experience offers lessons forboth paradigms: its unusual institutionalframework encompasses both a Ministryfor Agrarian Development (Ministério doDesenvolvimento Agrário – MDA) with aNational Secretariat for Family Farmingand a Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock andFood Supply (Ministério da Agricultura,Pecuária e Abastecimento – MAPA).

With a view to fostering South-Southlearning on policy options for smallholderor family farm production this articleexplores the contribution of Brazil’s PublicFood Acquisition Programme (Programa deAquisição de Alimentos – PAA) to social andenvironmental sustainability outcomes.Souza and Klug (2012), in this series,discuss in more detail the PAA’s foodsecurity dimensions and its application inthe context of the PAA Africa programme.

The smallholder farming dilemma

The current agriculture and foodregime prioritises production at scaleand at competitive prices. While eventhe poorest family farmers, for the most

part, need to produce for sale to acquirecash to meet basic needs, access tothe market is often unreliable, riskyand tends to take place on relativelyunfavourable terms. Programmes thatprovide access to finance, inputs andtrainingand encourage integration invalue chains are not always up to thetask for small farmers.

A new generation of productive inclusionprogrammes (see Lal and Junior, 2010),such as the PAA, potentially addssignificant value here.

Within the framework of a sociallyregulated market mechanism thatcharacterises the PAA, the governmentpurchases various goods at market pricesto build up public food stocks thatregulates prices and channels food tolocal institutions serving food-insecurepopulations. The PAA has a numberof different modalities, and from thepoint of view of local development,the simultaneous donation programmeis particularly innovative.

While a number of countries havefood procurement systems, one of themajor innovations of Brazil’s PAA is itsdecentralised procurement modalities.This contributes to realising a number ofsustainable local development outcomesincluding employment and ruralentrepreneurship (see Table, next page).

Specifically, these outcomes are:

Social inclusion and sustainability:Three important dimensions of socialsustainability are considered here,namely, income, social protection andhealth. The PAA offers family farmerspredictable demand and hence basicincome security. They can sell to theprogramme at market prices until theyreach a predefined (financial) maximum.

Public Policies for Inclusive and Sustainable

Agriculture: an Emerging Agenda forSouth-South Cooperation? by Radhika Lal, Ryan L. Nehring and Ben McKay1

The current agriculture

and food regime prioritises

production at scale and

at competitive prices.

One of the major

innovations of Brazil’s

PAA is its decentralised

procurement modalities.

This contributes to

realising a number

of sustainable local

development outcomes

including employment and

rural entrepreneurship.

1. Radhika Lal, Ryan Nehring and Benedict McKay,co-coordinator, consultant and visiting researcher,Employment, Social Protection and DevelopmentTeam, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.


intensive technologies. The PAA alsooffers agro-ecological producers a priceincentive of an additional 30 per centwhich contributes to greener agriculturaloutputs. Agro-ecological producers notonly have a more predictable market butalso increased access to price insuranceand social security. Products that areproduced sustainably but are difficult tocertify are channelled to local markets,fairs and certified organic products andwider market outlets.

Conventional agriculture, on the otherhand, tends to prioritise productivity inthe short term and often leads to soildepletion and increased susceptibility topests. Agro-ecological producers are ableto secure increases in crop resiliency,diversity and quality—additionalbenefits for resource conservation andsustainability efforts. However, this caninvolve higher costs initially.The programme provides incentivesthat encourage farmers to transitionaway from the use of agro-chemicalinputs, to diversify production andincorporate local knowledge, techniquesand seeds, which is critical to ensuringsustainable increases in productivityand resilience over time.

Economic sustainabilitythrough local development:The PAA serves to inject cash with stimuluseffects on the local economy whileinvigorating local supply chains. PAA-typeprogrammes are particularly importantfor areas with poor infrastructure that arefar from urban markets. Their growingrole in the poorer states of Brazil(North and North-East) contributes toreducing sub-national spatial disparities(see Figure for changes in regionalpresence over time). By linking acrossmultiple dimensions and levels, the PAAproves to be a very practical instrumentfor building the capacity of farmers toproduce goods of quality with the scopeto access other market opportunitiesover time.

Farmers are more likely to be concernedabout the quality and safety of theirproducts when they have a relationshipwith consumers—for example, whenprocured food is distributed tolocal schools attended by thefarmer’s children.

Source: MDA, 2010.

Prices are higher than those that familyfarmers would normally receive giventheir limited bargaining power withintermediaries and dependence on thelocal market. Findings from the PAAmanagement group, Grupo Gestordo PAA (2010), suggest that beneficiaryfarmers received three times the incomeof non-beneficiaries as a result ofmarketing produce through the PAA.

The food procured through the PAA findsits way into institutions serving a socialpurpose—from community kitchens toschools, also part of a broader nationalsocial protection framework. In manycommunities, the PAA-procured foodgoes to a popular distribution centrewhich then provides free basicfood staples to vulnerable groups.The food is fresher and provides aparticular boost in nutrition for children,improving their cognitive ability,energy and their overall health.

Environmental sustainability:The PAA avoids unsustainable build-upsof stocks and reduces the need forextensive transport and distributionnetworks. It is thus potentially low-carbon in its approach to consumption.It works with farmers who are, by default,less likely to deploy natural resource-

By linking across multipledimensions and levels,the PAA proves to be a verypractical instrument forbuilding the capacityof farmers to producegoods of quality withscope to access othermarket opportunitiesover time.

Agro-ecological producersare able to secure increasesin crop resiliency, diversityand quality—additionalbenefits for resourceconservation andsustainability efforts.However, this can involvehigher costs initially.

PPA Modalities

Direct purchasefrom family faming

Support to familyfarming storckformationt

Procurement withsimultaneousdonation or localdirect procurement

PPA Milk

Focused on procuring products athow prices or for the purpose ofmeeting the food demands ofpopulations facing food insecurity.

Provide resources for familyfarming organizations to buildstocks of their products tomarket them later when marketconditions are more available.

Responsible for donating productspurchased from family farmingto people facing food andnutrition insecurity.

Ensures the free distribution ofmilk through actions designed tocombat hunger and malnutritionof people facing sociallyvulnerable situations and/orfood and nutrition insecurity.Covers the northeastern states.

R$ 8 thousand

R$ 8 thousand

R$ 4,5 thousand

R$ 4 thousandper semester

MDA and MDS

MDA and MDS

MDS

MDS

Poverty in Focus 15

The value of connecting

people, policies and institutions

There are a number of policy issues thatarise as regards implementation of aprogramme that targets smallholders.2

The PAA sets limits to how much it willprocure and is thus more attractive topoorer farmers than other public fooddistribution systems, which tendto attract and rely on big producers.

A significant determining factor isoutreach and identification of the targetgroup and linking them to critical services.Brazil uses a basic registry to delivercredit to family farmers (DAP). This doesnot necessarily capture poor people, whoare more likely to show up in the singleregistry (Cadastro Unico) that is usedfor its social programmes. Greaterintegration between the two is afocus under the new nationalstrategy Brasil sem Miseria.

Moreover, while linking local productionto local consumption is potentially low-carbon and more sustainable, access totransportation is still a challenge for poorfarmers. Ensuring local coordinationand support for delivery and pick-up,especially of fresh produce, is thusa priority issue. The experience of Braziland other countries also points to theimportance of local organisers that can serveas connectors and facilitators to raiseawareness and connect poor andunder-served farmers to technicaland programme services. In Brazil, localorganisations and food security councilsprovide the core platform for thecontinued evolution of the programme.The PAA seeks to ensure programmesustainability by stipulating a maximumlevel of predictable demand and henceincome from the programme whileproviding farmers with experience inproducing for sale coupled with servicesnecessary for diversification.

Since its inception in 2003 the budget forpublic food purchases in the programmehas expanded from just over US$43 millionto now over $427 million, with a total ofUS$1.9 billion invested in procuring 3.1million tons of food that went to benefitmore than 15 million people in some2,300 municipalities. Over 200,000 familyfarms have participated in procurementthrough the PAA (Conab, 2012). Due to its

success the Brazilian governmentplans to more than double the numberof family farmers involved to almost450,000 families by 2014 (MDA, 2012).Similar tailored domestic support forsmallholder agriculture is needed inother countries now more than ever.

Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento

(Conab) (2012). Programa de Aquisição deAlimentos: Resultados das Ações da Conab

em 2011. Brasília, Conab. CompanhiaNacional de Abastecimento (Conab) (2012).

Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos:Resultados das Ações da Conab em 2011.

Brasília, Conab.

Grupo Gestor do PAA (2010). Balanço deAvaliação da Execução do Programa de

Aquisição de Alimentos PAA. Relatóriodescritivo. Brasília, Grupo Gestor do PAA.

Lal & Junior (2010). ‘Where Biodiversity,

Traditional Knowledge, Health andLivelihoods Meet: Institutional Pillars for the

Productive Inclusion of Local Communities(Brazil Case Study)’, IPC-IG Working Paper

No. 81. Brasília, IPC-IG.

Ministério de Desenvolvimento Agrário(MDA) (2010). A New Rural Brazil. Brasília, MDA.

MDA (2012). PAA – Balanço 2011 e dados 2012.

Brasília, MDA (accessed from personalcontact at MDA, 20 March 2012).

Peixinho, A. (2010). ‘PNAE Brazilian School

Feeding Program’, Global Child NutritionForum The Multi-Sectoral Approach: Linking

School Health, Nutrition, School Feeding andLocal Agricultural Production, 1–5 June 2010,

Accra, Ghana, <http://www.gcnf.org/GCNF%202010%20Exec%20Summaries%20and%20CVR%20v021511_FINAL.pdf>(accessed 25 May 2012).

Rosset, P. (2000). ‘The Multiple Functions

and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculturein the Context of Global Trade Negotiations’,

Development 43: 2. Rome, WorldFood Programme.

2. These are some of the critical issues and insightsthat emerged from field research conducted bythe authors in the states of Piauí and Ceará.Piauí and Ceará are two of the poorestand most unequal states in the country.

The experience of Braziland other countries alsopoints to the importanceof local organisers thatcan serve as connectorsand facilitators to raiseawareness and connectpoor and under-servedfarmers to technicaland programme services.

Greater integrationbetween the basic registryto deliver credit to familyfarmers (DAR) and thesingle registry (CadastroUnico) that is used forsocial programmes,will be an importantstep forward.

Source: Conab, 2012.


The development of South-Southand Triangular Cooperation raises anumber of questions about its potentialto contribute to more inclusive andsustainable policy practices. As far asfood security policy is concerned, theopportunity for knowledge-sharingamong countries that face or have facedcommon challenges represents a pathyet to be expanded and consolidated.

In this regard, as Brazil diversifies itspartners and support activities for foodsecurity in developing countries, it ispertinent to analyse the potential ofthese initiatives to suitably tackle thedifferent dimensions of this matter.This article examines the definingfeatures of the PAA Africa programme,a cooperation initiative which startsin 2012 in 10 African countries.

The PAA Africa programme emergedfrom a political commitment madeby the Brazilian government during thehigh-level summit ‘Brazil-Africa Dialogueon Food Security, the Fight againstHunger and Rural Development’, held inBrasilia in 2010. It aims to contribute tofood security and income generationby linking small-scale farmers to foodassistance initiatives though localfood purchase.

The programme is organised intotwo strategies. The first covers Brazilianhumanitarian cooperation and will beimplemented by the General Coordinationfor International Action Against Hunger(CGFOME) through an agreement withthe Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) and the World Food Programme(WFP). It focuses on five countries:Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigerand Senegal. Other partners arecontributing to this strategy suchas the UK Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID), which supports the

PAA Africa is organised

into two strategies:

The first covers Brazilian

humanitarian cooperation

and the second Brazilian

technical cooperation.

PAA Africa has the

potential to promote,

within public policy agendas,

trade channels that can offer

large and stable demand

along with more profitable

prices for this public.

National governments,

UN agencies, smallholder

farmers’ organisations and

local communities are

among the key

stakeholders considered.

related South-South knowledge-sharingactivities with WFP. The second strategycovers Brazilian technical cooperationand will be implemented by the BrazilianTechnical Cooperation Agency (ABC),partnered with the FAO. It targetsGhana, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Kenyaand Cote d’Ivoire.

Each strategy has its particularities asregards partners, methodologies andactivities. Two major components,however, are present in both cases.One concerns the development ofa pilot project for local food purchasein each country, to be designed andimplemented according to an assessmentof each national context. The otherregards strengthening knowledge ofrelated stakeholders for the developmentof a longer-term local food purchasestrategy within national policy.

Implementation of the programmewill cover a range of activities, notablytechnical visits, seminars and disseminationof pertinent documentation. Nationalgovernments, UN agencies, smallholderfarmers’ organisations and localcommunities are among the keystakeholders considered.

PAA Africa was inspired by the Brazilianexperience with public procurement offood items from family farmers.1 As partof the Zero Hunger strategy, the FoodPurchase Programme (PAA) and theSchool Feeding Programme (PNAE) allowgovernment procurement of local fooditems, whether solely from familyproducers, in the case of PAA, or througha quota system, in the case of PNAE.While PNAE’s impact in this regard needsto be analysed further, since the localpurchase quota only began in 2009,PAA has proven to have achievedimportant results over its nearly 10years of operation. It has made available

by Darana Souza,WFP Centre of Excellence against Hunger,

and Israel Klug, FAO, Brazil

1. In Brazil, family farmers are legally definedin the National Family Farming Act (Law 11.326)according to four requirements: the rural establishment(or undertaking area of activity) does not exceed fourfiscal modules (defined in each municipality); thelabour used in the related activities is predominantlyfamily-based; the family’s income predominantlyoriginates from activities related to farming andthe smallholding; and the establishment isdirectly managed by the family.

A Multidimensional Approach

to Food Security: PAA Africa

Poverty in Focus 17

a diverse range of quality and locallyrelevant foods. Furthermore, as an optionof guaranteed markets at fixed profitableprices, the programme ensures directmonetary benefits to farmers and buildstheir productive and organisationalcapacities (Chmielewska and Souza, 2010).

As far as the African context is concerned,the programme intends to leverageexisting similar experiences. Home-grown school feeding (HGSF) is oneof them, characterised by the use ofnationally or locally produced andpurchased food items in school meals.Experimented with in different Africancountries, it is seen as a tool forincreasing both children’s wellbeingand promoting agricultural production.The impacts of these initiatives, however,are yet to be examined further.

Another related experience is WFP’sPurchase for Progress (P4P), a pilotinitiative launched in 2008 targeting 15countries in Africa, two in Asia and fourin Latin America. By linking the demandfrom WFP—a significant buyer in sub-Saharan Africa—with the supply-sideexpertise of partners, P4P gives farmersan incentive to invest in their production.In addition to the diverse network ofpartnerships it has generated, one of themost crucial lessons the five-year pilothas demonstrated is that smallholderfarmers and their organisations can supplyhigh- quality commodities provided thereis an investment in their capacity(WFP and KIT, 2012).

These various experiences combinedcan be further consolidated in Africa,where they are largely pertinent due tothe high prevalence of food insecurityand large share of smallholder farmersinvolved in food production. In thisregard, a number of issues can be raisedconcerning the opportunities andchallenges for PAA Africa to delivermultiple benefits in diverse nationalfood security policy contexts.

Access to commercialisation channelsis recognised as an essential pillar ofsupport to smallholder farmers andrequires particular interventions to tacklethe barriers they face to enter markets(Barrett, 2008). PAA Africa has thepotential to promote, within public

policy agendas, trade channels that canoffer large and stable demand alongwith more profitable prices forthis public.

With respect to the food offered, theprogramme is flexible enough foranalysis and consequent use of any fooditem produced by smallholder farmers.This can strengthen the provision ofdiversified and nutritionally balancedmeals and rations in food assistanceprogrammes. Furthermore, locally grownand distributed items are potentiallyin accordance with local food habits.From the perspective of farmers, this isan opportunity to consolidate marketalternatives to both commodity items andto local food varieties that are less affectedby international food price volatility.

Another important opportunitypresented by PAA Africa is its potential todeliver environmental benefits, mainlythrough its targeting of local foodpurchase and distribution. Short supplychains have the benefit of reducingtransportation needs as well as costs,with the potential positive impact oflowering carbon emissions. Possibleadditional benefits, which could bederived from the use of locally definedenvironmentally friendly productiontechniques, could be explored further.

A number of challenges emerge whichcould limit the full realisation of theprogramme’s potential. Among theseare structural as well as practicalconsiderations. Differences in nationalcontexts such as institutional capacity,smallholder profile and production,design and implementation mechanismsof food assistance programmes, forexample, represent important difficultiesto generate profits from the Brazilianmodel. Accordingly, proper considerationof and adaptation to the local contextwill be key to success. In this context,the actual collaboration processes andmechanisms developed with the relevantnational and local stakeholders duringimplementation of the programmewill be paramount.

Notwithstanding the above, it isimportant to bear in mind that PAAAfrica is currently a small-scale cooperationactivity for each of the countries involved.

To achieve the potential highlightedabove, issues of sustainability andup-scaling will need to be tackled.Government ownership and capacity tolead related programmes is an importantcondition for both of these to be met.Yet if PAA Africa considers actionstowards these goals, success will beaffected by a broader context, includingpolitical stability and continuouscommitment, proper development ofdecentralised administrative, financialand procurement models, long-termpublic or partnership-based logisticcapacity, and fiscal space accompaniedby continuous resource allocation.

Likewise, for sustainability andexpansion of the food supply fromsmallholder farmers to be secured, thechallenge will be to guarantee that anexpected increasing universe ofparticipating producers are actuallyable to respond to the commercialopportunities offered by publicpurchase initiatives. This means havingthe capacity to provide food productsto potentially large, stable marketsaccording to a specified quantity, agreedtimeframe, required variety and qualitydemand. The development of thiscapacity will entail a wide range oflonger-term complementary supportactivities to this group, beyond thescope of PAA Africa alone.

Finally, it is necessary that foodassistance programmes which bothreceive and deliver publicly purchaseditems are continuously strengthened.Appropriate infrastructure for storageand/or cooking (when pertinent) as wellas capacity development of personnelinvolved in areas such as food qualitycontrol, stock management and cooking

The challenge is toguarantee that anexpected increasinguniverse of participatingproducers are actuallyable to respond to thecommercial opportunitiesoffered by publicpurchase initiatives.


are essential activities that requirecontinuous attention and upgrading.

Overall, PAA Africa represents a strategicopportunity to link successful modelsin Brazil which are appropriate to thechallenges also faced in Africa and tobuild on similar experiences on thecontinent. It offers an occasion to increasejoint support for the multiple dimensionsof food security and to increase bothknowledge and practice in this area.

In other words, it promotes accessto food to vulnerable populationsthrough support to local smallholderfood production, income generation and

food distribution; proper food utilisationthrough possible diversification of fooditems and coherence with local eatinghabits; and environmental benefits byavoiding additional transport-relatedcarbon emissions.

The possibility for this programme toachieve its full potential will to a greatextent depend on how solidly it will beimplemented and further developed ineach country context. Close monitoringof this experience will improve knowledgeand understanding of the potential forBrazil-Africa cooperation to promotesustainable and inclusivepolicy practices.

Barrett, C. B. (2008). ‘Smallholder

Market Participation: Concepts andEvidence from Eastern and Southern Africa’,

Food Policy 33, Issue 4.

Chmielewska, D. and Souza, D. (2010).‘Market Alternatives for Smallholder

Farmers in Food Security Initiatives:Lessons from the Brazilian Food Acquisition

Programme’, Working Paper No. 64.Brasilia, IPC-IG.

WFP and KIT (2012). ‘Experiences

of P4P capacity building effortsand procurement from farmers’

organizations’, WFP Website,<http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp244737.pdf>(accessed 16 May 2012).

As China’s role in internationaldevelopment increases, China-Africacooperation is more and more concernedwith the focus on its mixture of aid,investment and trade, the lack oftransparency and of conditionalityof aid, social responsibility of private-sector actors, and issues of neo-colonialism. Reviewing the historicalchanges in China-Africa agriculturalcooperation could help to respondto those concerns to some extent.

China-Africa agricultural cooperationhas gone through three stages duringthe 50 years since 1959. The first stage,from 1959 to the 1970s, was dominatedby development assistance, with theChinese government offering grantaid to African countries to help buildfarms, agricultural experiment stationsand water conservation projects andprovide extension services andtechnical expertise.

In the second stage, from the late 1970sto the end of the 1990s, a system ofawarding investment contracts to stateenterprises was adopted for someassistance projects. In addition to non-reimbursable assistance, concessionary

loans gradually became a majorpart of agricultural assistance to Africa.Furthermore, China began to participatein multilateral aid activities on the Africancontinent. The third stage, from 2000onwards, involved a further deepeningof Sino-African agricultural cooperation.

The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation,and the signing of a number of multilateraland bilateral agricultural cooperationdocuments, indicate that Sino-Africanagricultural cooperation is progressivelyturning from a project-based to a morestrategic and sustainable form ofinstitutional development.

In addition to bilateral aid and economiccooperation, China is actively applyingthe United Nations system’s Frameworkon South-South Cooperation mechanismand other multilateral mechanisms toextend agricultural assistance to Africa.

China and Africa’s agriculturalcooperation involves crop cultivation,fisheries management, technicalcooperation, agricultural processingprojects, construction of agriculturalinfrastructure and personnel training,and has spread to 44 countries on the

In addition to bilateral aid

and economic cooperation,

China is actively applying the

United Nations system’s

Framework on South-South

Cooperation mechanism

and other multilateral

mechanisms to extend

agricultural assistance

to Africa.

The dynamics of agricultural

cooperation between China

and Africa reflect the

changes in perceptions

and implementation

approaches embedded

in the international

development environment,

China’s domestic policies

and the development

strategies of African

countries.

Agricultural Cooperation between China

and Africa – Opportunities and Challengesby Gubo Qi,1

1. The author is based at the China AgriculturalUniversity and is a member of the global FACresearch team. This article is based on a researchteam effort resulting in the publication ofAgricultural Development in China and Africa:A Comparative Study by Earthscan in April 2012.

Poverty in Focus 19

African continent. Agriculturalcooperation has become an importantpart of China-Africa relations. From 1960to 2006, China’s agricultural assistanceprojects in Africa accounted for one-fifthof China’s total aid projects in Africa(Bräutigam and Tang, 2009).

The dynamics of agriculturalcooperation between China and Africareflect the changes in perceptions andimplementation approaches embeddedin the international developmentenvironment, China’s domestic policiesand the development strategiesof African countries.

Changes in perceptions mostly relate topolitical and economic considerations.In the 1950s and 1960s, ideology andpolitics guided the agricultural assistancefrom China to Africa; it did not have anyadditional requirements and was fullysupported by China’s government andexpected to contribute to a new politicaland economic order, together withother aid areas. With the failure and lackof sustainability of those aid projects,two-way agricultural cooperation took onthe major role, with enterprises becomingthe main actors of cooperation and aparticular emphasis on mutual benefits.

The objectives of improving the capacityof state-owned enterprises to manageinternational companies and promotethe chances of private-sector actors ofmaximising profits were integratedinto aid strategies and plans.

The change from one-way aid tocooperation with mutual benefitsto multilateral and diverse cooperationmechanism-building was also relatedto the international developmentenvironment and aid practices, and thetrajectory of agricultural developmentstrategies in African countries.

In particular, along with the privatisationand globalisation process worldwide,neo-liberalism has generally prevailed andthe role of the private sector emphasisedin the development arena. Once thedecreased proportion of agriculturaloverseas direct investment (ODI) wasreviewed in the context of the impactsof price fluctuation on agriculture andpoverty issues, a broader concept of

agricultural cooperation began toemerge to substitute traditionalagricultural aid.

Moreover, the adjustment ofdevelopment strategies in Africancountries induced correspondingrequirements for agriculturaldevelopment, which have contributedto the paradigm shift of China-Aricaagricultural cooperation. At the earlystage after independence, the full useof agricultural resources and the gapbetween food supply and food demandwere significant issues, and agricultural aidand, particularly, agricultural technologyaid were designed accordingly.

However, the failings of structuraladjustment reinforced the cancellingof national economic developmentplanning efforts and the eliminationof agricultural subsidies, with bothsmallholders and large farms facing theproblems of attracting financial resourcesand improving their marketing andmanagement capacities to adaptto a rapidly changing marketingenvironment. Joint-venture and othereconomic cooperation patterns wererequired and produced.

Significant achievements in agriculturaldevelopment in China contrasted withthe food security problems in Africain the mid-1980s, and Sino-Africaenterprises with shared stakeholderswere established in many countriesdue to their management ideas andapproaches and impact on the efficiencyof agricultural production.

The change in domestic policies andsystems in China which influenced thecooperation between China and African

countries by expanding its internaldevelopment patterns also cannotbe ignored or underplayed. Planningsystems in the 1960s and 1970s were akind of fixed and substantial pattern, andmarketing systems, after the 1980s, madedevelopment schemes more diverse, withmore focus on the agency of enterprisesand self-reliant technological innovation.These were introduced into Africancountries accordingly. Such multiplepatterns of agricultural cooperationare essential, particularly in the currentcontext of globalisation.

The nature of agriculture is now relatedto a number of externalities whencompared with other industries—for example, lower internal rate ofreturn, the higher relevance of landconservation and demands for greaterenvironmental protection.

Accordingly, there are significant limitsto a purely commercial approach toagricultural cooperation in termsof both investment willingness andsocial impacts. With multiple agenciesparticipating and a diversity ofapproaches, those limitationsare only going to increase.

However, there are still many challengesfor more effective cooperation betweenChina and Africa. These include:

Creating a balance between publicand private benefits when jointventures are playing more and moreimportant roles: Although joint venturesor enterprise-type farms could beviable alternatives for sustainingcurrent aid projects, critical debatesare already emerging around the shiftfrom non-profit public welfareresearch institutions to a business-oriented model. Additionally, thewillingness of investors from Chinaand adequate spaces for actors fromAfrican countries to develop theirown agriculture are both essential.

Maximising the nexus of technology,institutions and basic resources forintegrated application: The approachesapplied by the Chinese governmentand/or private sector were mostlybased on its macro economic, socialand administrative environment.

Overall, agriculturalcooperation between Chinaand African countriesremains a dynamiclearning process. Manyinvestors from China lackin-depth knowledge ofthe local context.


While there is significant potentialto adapt them to a totally differentregion and/or context, these needto be more fully analysed in abroader context and adjustedaccordingly. Moreover, themanagement approach will requirea more novel approach beyond themarketing of agricultural products.

Making businesses responsible fortechnology extension and knowledgedistribution: A mature managementmechanism for private investmentin Africa has yet to be established.Many investors from China currentlylack in-depth knowledge of Africanlaws, regulations, policies, religiouspractices and traditions.

Sending experts and techniciansto work in the field: Meeting theneeds of partner countries basedon their own natural resources,production patterns and policy and

market environment is also importantfor a successful transfer process.

Attracting investors directly forthe agricultural sector, considering thelower internal rate of return thanother industrial sectors.

Defining and integrating novelcooperation approaches into currentinternational development cooperationmechanisms: A mixture of China’said and commercial activities existsvaguely on the boundaries of thework of cooperation agencies,the implicit linkage between publicand private and the dynamics ofimplementers. The combinationof aid programmes with investmentprojects and loan-for-exportactivities and the advantages ofChinese state- owned enterprisesall emerged from the implementationof the Angola model (Kaplinsky andFarooki, 2009).

Overall, agricultural cooperationbetween China and African countriesremains a dynamic learning processwhich requires new theoreticalconcepts and frameworks to improveunderstanding and analysis, goingeven beyond the current knowledgeparadigm. Equal exchange amongpolicymakers, academic institutionsand non-governmental and internationaldevelopment organisations is key tothis learning process.

Bräutigam, D. A. and Tang, X. Y.

(2009). ‘China’s Engagement in AfricanAgriculture: Down to the Countryside’,

The China Quarterly. 199: 686–706.

Kaplinsky, R. and Farooki, M. (2009).Africa’s Cooperation with New and

Emerging Development Partners:operations for Africa’s Development.

New York, NY, UN Office of the SpecialAdviser on Africa (UN-OSSA),

<http://oro.open.ac.uk/19597>(accessed 25 May 2012).

South-South Cooperation between Africa

and South American Emerging Countries:

The Case of Agriculture and Rural Developmentby Frédéric Goulet and Eric Sabourin1

The recent dialogues organisedbetween Brazil, Argentina and internationalorganisations are representative of therapidly expanding scale of cooperationwith African countries around agriculture,food security and rural development.2

Are the intentions, initiatives andinstitutions the same in Brazil andArgentina? This article will qualitativelyassess the main areas of convergenceand divergence between the approachesemployed by these two countries, andunderline the debates that these modelsof cooperation open up in terms ofpublic-private relations and multiplemodels of agricultural development.

Rhetoric and related

institutional frameworks

Both Brazil and Argentina havedeveloped South-South Cooperation

initiatives based on similar values,rhetoric and justifications, largelydifferentiating themselves from‘traditional’ actors. Among the issuesnoted are their lack of a colonial pastwith possible target countries, a demand-driven context for cooperation and adirected response to clearly articulatedpartner interests.

Horizontality, without any kind ofdomination or hidden interest, is the keyprinciple in the discourses on South-SouthCooperation. The institutional structure isalso quite similar, with initiatives beingmanaged principally in both countriesby an agency under the Ministry ofForeign Affairs. The Agencia Brasileirade Cooperação (ABC) in Brazil andthe Fondo Argentino de CooperaciónHorizontal (FO-AR) in Argentina are the

Horizontality, without

any kind of domination or

hidden interest, is the key

principle in the discourses on

South-South Cooperation.

Biotechnology, no-till

methods and adapted planting

equipment are at the heart of

the demand for cooperation

by African countries.

1. Both authors are researchers at the Centre decoopération internationale en recherche agronomiquepour le développement (CIRAD) [InternationalCooperation Centre for Agricultural Researchfor Development], Montpellier.

This article is based on ongoing research realizedthrough financial support from Agence Française deDéveloppement (AFD) and the Agence Nationalede la Recherche (Project ANR-09-STRA-04).

Poverty in Focus 21

In terms of concrete activities, theBrazilian model of agricultural South-South Cooperation is more active thanthe Argentinean one, especially in Africa.

According to internal reports, the ABCimplemented agricultural ‘activities’ in 30African countries in 2010, with a specialfocus on Portuguese-speaking countries(ABC, 2010). Although its work coversmany areas, cooperation focused mainlyon ‘technology transfer’ in areas such asbiofuels, vegetable and animal genetics,irrigation, cropping systems andvegetable and fruit productionor transformation.

While the short missions of Brazilianexperts to Africa or African professionalsto Brazil are the most common tool,the permanent presence of Embrapastaff in countries such as Senegal andMozambique allows the agency topartner with local institutions on long-term experiments—for example to adaptBrazilian rice varieties to local conditions.

The biggest projects—for example,ProSavannah or ProAlimentar inMozambique— are conceptualised andexecuted through triangular cooperationwith industrialised countries such asJapan or the USA.

The African activities of INTA are moremodest, as Africa is still an emerging fieldof activity compared to the South-SouthCooperation conducted by Argentina inLatin America. Over the last five yearsINTA has established a cooperationmemorandum with South Africa, Kenya,

Zambia, Algeria and Morocco andsigned a letter of intent with Egypt,giving coherence to older cooperationagreements—just as Brazil has doneover the past decade. The scope ofaction is wide, covering topics suchas biotechnology, cropping systems,biofuel, post-harvest technologies,cattle technology, soil sciences, precisionagriculture, vegetable seeds etc.

New dynamics: dual agricultural and

public-private arrangements

Brazil and Argentina are keen to expandtheir international influence, and Africancountries are eager to benefit fromthese South American success storiesin agriculture and food security policies.But these successes—and the foreigninterests they generate—are linked totwo different models of agriculturaldevelopment which operate inboth countries.

With respect to the agribusiness modelfocused on commodity production,countries in Southern Africa are

lead actors in this new form ofdevelopment cooperation. Unlikeits Southern counterpart, the ABCcoordinates foreign aid to Brazil aswell as Brazilian cooperation support toforeign countries. For its part, the FO-ARis only dedicated to the second part ofthe mission (FO-AR, 2010)— i.e. technical/development cooperation with othercountries of the South.

In both countries, requests forcooperation from third countries arereceived through embassies and thentransmitted to the ABC or FO-AR.The two agencies then centraliserequests and transmit them to national‘execution’ agencies, in charge of actualimplementation. In the agricultural sector,the two main actors are, in both cases,national agricultural research centres:the Brazilian Agricultural ResearchCorporation (Embrapa) and theArgentinean National AgriculturalResearch Institute (INTA).

Emerging practice and themes

in cooperation on agriculture

The dominant characteristic of bothcooperation systems is that they providemainly technical cooperation. Braziland Argentina do not offer financialcooperation, as China does—forexample, through gifts or preferentialloans. The main mechanism deployedhas been to send experts for well-targeted short missions. More recently,Embrapa has started posting staff inrecipient countries such as Senegaland Mozambique. Embrapa also worksthrough official representation officesabroad (it opened its African officein Ghana in 2005).

While Embrapa enjoys many advantagesthrough such arrangements, includinga great deal of flexibility, its researchmandate means it has a marginal interestand autonomy in technical cooperationon extension. Yet the ABC requestsEmbrapa to mostly work on extension,and pays it to do so. For its part, INTAdoes not face such limitations, as theinstitution integrates both researchand extension in its approach.In that sense, it has more autonomyfrom the FO-AR in defining a globaltechnical cooperation strategy thanEmbrapa has from the ABC.

Dual Agricultural Models in Brazil and Argentina – Hope for Africa?

The first is an agribusiness model, based on the production of commoditiesand diffusion of (bio) technology.

The second is a smallholder or family farming model, based on publicsupport and adapted technologies.

African countries are equally interested in both models, to simultaneously developindustrial supply chains that are able to attract foreign investors, and local food systemsadapted to smallholder conditions. In the case of the latter, successful experiences suchas the Brazilian Mais Alimentos (see Cabral and Shankland, 2012; Patriota and Pierri, 2012in this series) or Bolsa Familia (see Campolina, 2012 also in this series) are being adaptedto Africa at the request of local stakeholders. Similarly, the Argentinean Pro-Huertaprogramme is also being adapted; developed initially through triangular cooperationin Haiti, it is attracting the interest of countries such as Mozambique and Angola.

2. In May 2010, Brazilian authorities held athree-day meeting in Brasilia entitled ‘Dialogo Brasil-África sobre segurança alimentar, Combate a Fome eDesenvolvimento rural’ [‘Brazil-Africa Dialogue on FoodSecurity. Fighting Hunger and Rural Development’]with representatives from several African countriesand international organisations such as the AfricanUnion, NEPAD, African Development Bank, FAO, WFPand The World Bank. In April 2011, Argentina held afour-day meeting in Buenos Aires and Tucumanentitled ‘Africa Sub-Saharan Countries – Argentina:Innovación y desarrollo en la producción deagroalimentos’ [‘African sub-Saharan Countriesand Argentina: Innovation and Development in theProduction of Food Crops’] with representatives from13 African countries and international organisations.


particularly interested in the SouthAmerican experience in soybeanproduction (see Marin, 2012). SouthernAfrican countries have emerged in thelast few years as a leading destinationfor foreign investment in soybeanproduction, second only to South America.

Biotechnology, no-till methods based onsoil management and adapted plantingequipment are then at the heart of thedemand for cooperation by Africancountries. Brazilian and Argentineancooperation has been able to respondmore cost-effectively than traditionaldonors such as the USA and Europe,and at a higher quality than Chinesemanufacturing. South American firms inthese areas are gaining market sharein Africa, both in the large arable cropssectors such as soybean and in the

smallholder farming sector. Someprogrammes such as the BrazilianMais Alimentos Africa (see more detail onthis programme in Patriota and Pierri,2012, also in this series) in Zimbabwe orcooperation agreements between INTAand South African companies have theexplicit function of transferring nationaltechnology and exporting products ofthe national industry. South-SouthCooperation and commercial interestscan then be tightly linked, since South-South Cooperation is similar to but stilldistinct from ‘traditional’ cooperation.

Above all, the duality in the agriculturaldevelopment models promoted throughSouth-South Cooperation by Brazil andArgentina are themselves a source forstrong debate and even controversy,particularly regarding their direct and

indirect impacts on food security, socialinclusion or environmental quality. Arethen Brazil and Argentina transferring notonly their technology and know- how butalso inherent socio-technical challengesand possible polarising effects?This question serves as a stimulatingpoint of departure for broaderdiscussions and research around thedevelopment impact of South-SouthCooperation itself, particularly for socialscientists working on cooperationand technological innovation.

Agencia Brasileira de Cooperação (ABC)

(2010). A cooperação técnica do Brasil paraÁfrica. Brasília, ABC.

Fondo Argentino de Cooperación

Horizontal (FO-AR) (2010). South-Southand Triangular Cooperation of Argentina.

Buenos Aires, FO-AR.

Agriculture is a central themein Brazil’s expanding South-SouthCooperation, particularly in Africawhere the sector accounts for more than20 per cent of the country’s technicalcooperation projects (ABC, 2011) andis present in the portfolio of Braziliancooperation with at least 26 countries(Cabral and Shankland, 2012).Brazil’s successful agribusiness sectorhas attracted global attention, andthe transformation of Brazil’s centralsavannah belt— the cerrado—intothe world’s most important soybeanproduction region is of specialrelevance to Africa. The ‘cerrado miracle’(The Economist, 2010) has, in fact,been proposed as a model for the‘Guinea savannah zone and beyond’(World Bank, 2009) and is already beingpiloted along the Nacala corridor, innorthern Mozambique, through atrilateral partnership between thegovernments of Brazil, Japanand Mozambique.2

Transferring Brazilian Agricultural

Successes to African Soil: a Reality Checkby Lídia Cabral, Overseas Development Institute and

Alex Shankland, Institute of Development Studies1

Research and development, which hasplayed a major part in Brazil’s storiesof success and transformation, is a keycomponent of the country’s South-SouthCooperation with Africa, as evidenced bythe strong involvement of Embrapa—agovernmental research agency with aworldwide reputation for excellence intropical crop science and technology(Cabral and Shankland, 2012).

However, as Brazilian developmentcooperation grows, many other actorsfrom Brazil’s complex agricultural policymatrix are also being called into thegame, bringing with them a diversityof experiences and visions of agriculture,development and Africa. This brief articleinitiates a discussion of how Brazil, as arelatively new international developmentactor with a cooperation model still verymuch in the making, is filtering its ownagricultural development practices acrossthe Atlantic. It draws attention to theBrazilian agricultural policy framework

Research and development,

which has played a major

part in Brazil’s stories of

success and transformation,

is a key component of the

country’s South-South

Cooperation with Africa.

1. Lídia Cabral is Research Associate at the OverseasDevelopment Institute, and Alex Shankland is ResearchFellow at the Institute of Development Studies.Both are members of the Future AgriculturesConsortium <http://www.future-agricultures.org/>.

2. See, for example, <http://www.embrapa.br/imprensa/noticias/2010/janeiro/2a-semana/prosavanas-contara-com-tecnologias-da-embrapa-hortalicas/>.

3. See, for example, <http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/nacional,embrapa-vai-produzir-alimento-na-africa-diz-lula,61765,0.htm>.

4. ‘Diálogo Brasil-África em Segurança Alimentar,Combate à Fome e Desenvolvimento Rural’[‘Brazil–Africa Dialogue on Food Security, FightingHunger and Rural Development’] was held inMay 2010 in Brasília (ABC, 2010).

Poverty in Focus 23

New Forms of Technical Cooperation in Agriculture:

The Programa Mais Alimentos África and the Programa de Aquisição de Alimentosrepresent examples of new forms of technical cooperation based on adaptation of Brazilianpolicies to the African context.

Programa Mais Alimentos África aims to increase agricultural productivity and foodsecurity in Africa by improving access to technology. The programme led by MDA adaptsa similar programme implemented in Brazil, since 2008. It consists of a credit facility tosupport the acquisition of Brazilian farming machinery and equipment, directed at ‘familyfarming’, complemented by specialised technical assistance. Credit lines have alreadybeen negotiated with Ghana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Senegal and Kenya.

Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (PAA) aims to address food insecurity and strengthenlocal food markets by procuring food stuffs produced by small farmers, donating them tofamilies facing food insecurity, supplying school feeding programmes and building up foodstocks (see more information on PAA in preceding articles by Lal et al., Souza and Klug).

and highlights some of the challengesfacing the Brazil-Africa encounter in bothterms of transfer and adaptation as wellas exchange.

Brazil is a country of contrasts, andagricultural policy is no exception.The sector has long been a battlefieldof competing models of socio-economicdevelopment and at the centre ofpolitical mobilisation in the fields of landreform, agroecology and smallholderagriculture (see articles by Ina et al, 2012;Dusi, 2012 and Borges, 2012 in this series).These mobilisations have often arisen inresponse to the perceived social andenvironmental costs of the ‘agribusinessmodel’ and in the search for a moreinclusive approach to agricultural growth.

They have been driven by farmers’unions and social movements suchas the National Agricultural Workers’Confederation (CONTAG) and Movementof the Landless (MST) and by civil societycoalitions such as the National Articulationfor Agroecology (ANA). Pro-smallholderpolicies have been promoted within theBrazilian government by the Ministry ofAgrarian Development (MDA), whereasthe Ministry of Agriculture, Livestockand Food Supply (MAPA) has focusedon supporting the more capital-intensiveagribusiness sector. This dual institutionalsetting for governing the sectorseparates public policies to supporttwo different agro-production systems:small-scale ‘family farming’ and large-

scale agribusiness. Often portrayedas a technocratic division of labour, thisdual setting certainly reflects the realityof Brazil’s intricate political dynamicsin agriculture.

Brazil-Africa cooperation in agriculturehas been undergoing rapid expansionand transformation. Former presidentLuis Inácio Lula da Silva was a strongenthusiast for transferring Embrapa’srelevant experience and cutting-edgetropical agriculture technology to Africansoil.3 Agricultural cooperation gainedrenewed impetus at the end of Lula’smandate with the hosting of a seminalBrazil-Africa event on food security,hunger and rural development.4

This gathering marked the start of anew stage in Brazil-Africa agricultural

cooperation for development. It broughtto the table additional actors such as MDA,thereby diversifying the institutionallandscape and opening new thematicfronts for technical cooperation inagriculture. It also introduced newforms of technical cooperation throughlarger-scale and longer-term projectsfocused on the adaptation of successfulBrazilian policies to the Africancontext, particularly with regardsto smallholder agriculture.

Brazil’s agricultural cooperation portfolioin Africa today includes a rich arrayof models and visions of agricultureand development, which reflects thediversity, as well as the complexity,of the domestic landscape. Additionally,new modalities of cooperation thatcombine technical and financialsupport have been introduced.

Are Brazil’s ongoing practices contradictoryand irreconcilable or do they amount to avaluable mix of complementaryapproaches to development?

We are still far from arriving at adefinitive answer to this question, asmuch will depend on how practice onthe ground in Africa unfolds and whatevidence tells us about such practices.For the moment, however, three remarksare worth making, which refer to howSouth-South Cooperation is beingmanaged, particularly with referenceto Brazil-Africa exchanges. Althoughwe look at each of them from theperspective of the agriculture sector,they could be applied to Braziliancooperation more broadly.

The first concerns institutionalsegmentation and a perceived policyvoid. Brazil’s cooperation framework ispopulated by a diversity of players withno clear institutional lead or direction.

The Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC) ismandated with coordination of technicalcooperation, but, as a departmentof the Ministry of Foreign Affairswith limited technical expertise indevelopment issues, it lacks politicalclout and operational instrumentsto perform such a role effectively(Cabral and Weinstock, 2010).

This leadership gap, coupled with theinstitutional complexity of the agriculturesector, results in the absence of anexplicit policy for Brazilian agriculturalcooperation. What is left is a list ofgeneral guiding principles for Braziliancooperation (ABC, 2011) and a menuof Brazilian agricultural policies, researchand technology for partner countriesto choose from.

This policy vacuum is oftencharacterised as a positive feature ofBrazilian cooperation, whose ‘demand-driven’ and ‘non-interference’ principlesare incompatible with a pre-set policyagenda. The question then is how toassess the effectiveness of cooperationwithout a baseline policy frameworkwith clear objectives and criteriafor selecting countries, themesand beneficiaries.

The second remark is that Braziliancooperation seems to be largelydriven by a technocratic approach


to development, which assumes thatdevelopment will result from the transferof successful experiences mainly throughtechnical packages delivered viagovernment-to-government channels.

This approach overlooks the complexitiesof development, particularly in Africawhere development policy change is afar from linear process (deGrassi, 2005).While key players in the field (such asEmbrapa) have recently begun tostress the importance of learning andadaptation, there is as yet little evidencethat Brazilian agricultural cooperationis sufficiently informed by in-depthunderstandings of partner countrycontexts— not so much the characteristicsof local seeds, soils and climate, butrather the idiosyncrasies of the localpolitical economy and state–societydynamics that shape developmentprocesses (Cabral and Shankland, 2012).Although socio-economic studies arestarting to be incorporated into thedesign of Brazilian cooperation projects,there are still major gaps concerning thelocal political economy, and filling thesewill require sustained and broad-basedinteractions with local institutionsand processes.

Following on from this, our final remarkis that Brazil-Africa affinities are oftenoverstated and framed in politicalrhetoric. While powerful and longstandinglinks undoubtedly exist, beyond historicalbonds and agro-ecological similaritiesthe differences between Brazil and mostcountries in Africa are not insignificant—whether in economic, sociological,anthropological or political terms.There is little evidence that suchdifferences are well understood withinBrazil, where broader, less stereotypedor romanticised research about Africais beginning to emerge but stillremains significantly underdeveloped(Zamparoni, 2007). Furthermore, Brazilianafro-descendants, who could potentiallybuttress the ‘bridge across the Atlantic’(World Bank and IPEA, 2011), are farfrom influential in Brazilian formalinstitutions (Cabral and Shankland, 2012).

Brazil, alongside other rising worldpowers, offers exciting prospects forinternational development cooperation,technology transfer and knowledge

exchange. Not only does it add noveltyand a welcome contrast to a Northern-dominated development paradigm,but it also comes with a track recordof economic and social development,especially in agriculture, which Africancountries are eager to emulate. However,if past mistakes in the bumpy history ofAfrican development are to be avoided,such excitement may need to betempered by a sense of reality andgreater awareness of the challengesfacing Brazil as a development actor.Clarity is also needed on the requirementsfor both adapting and replicatingsuccesses from one context to another,if these are to achieve their intendedresults, let alone contribute significantlyto meeting the broader challenges ofachieving inclusive and sustainableagricultural development in Africa.

ABC (2010). Diálogo Brasil-África em

Segurança Alimentar, Combate à Fome eDesenvolvimento Rural. Brasília, Agência

Brasileira de Cooperação, Ministério dasRelações Exteriores.

ABC (2011). Brazilian technical cooperation.

Brasília, Agência Brasileira de Cooperação,Ministério das Relações Exteriores.

Cabral, L. and Weinstock, J. (2010). Brazilian

technical cooperation for development:drivers, mechanics and future prospects.

A report commissioned by the BrazilianCooperation Agency and the UK

Department for International Development.London, Overseas Development Institute.

Cabral, L and Shankland, A. (2012).

‘Brazil-Africa agriculture cooperationfor development: new paradigm?’ Draft

Working Paper. Brighton, Future AgriculturesConsortium (unpublished).

deGrassi, A. (2005). Political Studies of

Agricultural Policy Processes in Africa, 1975-2005: Review, Critique and Recommendations.

Brighton, Future Agricultures Consortium,<http://www.future-agricultures.org/pdf%20files/deGrassi_AfricanAgPolicies_Final.pdf> (accessed 23 May 2012).

The Economist (2010). ‘The miracle of the

cerrado’, The Economist, 26 August 2010.

World Bank (2009). Awakening Africa’sSleeping Giant: Prospects for Commercial

Agriculture in the Guinea Savannah Zoneand Beyond. Washington, DC, World Bank.

World Bank and IPEA (2011). Bridging the

Atlantic, Brazil and Sub-Saharan Africa:Partnering for Growth. Washington, DC,

and Brasília, World Bank and IPEA.

Zamparoni, V. (2007). ‘A África e os estudosafricanos no Brasil: passado e futuro’,

Ciência e Cultura 59: 46–49.

The dual institutionalsetting for governing thesector separates publicpolicies to support twodifferent agro-productionsystems: small-scale‘family farming’ andlarge-scale agribusinesses.Often portrayed as atechnocratic divisionof labour, this dual settingcertainly reflects the realityof Brazil’s intricate politicaldynamics in agriculture.

Brazil’s agriculturalcooperation portfolioin Africa today includesa rich array of models andvisions of agricultureand development, whichreflects the diversity,as well as the complexity,of the domestic landscape.

Although socio-economicstudies are starting to beincorporated into the designof Brazilian cooperationprojects, there are still majorgaps concerning the localpolitical economy, andfilling these will requiresustained and broad-basedinteractions with localinstitutions and processes.

Poverty in Focus 25

The use of Embrapa’s own

technical staff and the focus

on long-term sustainability

of the development

objectives of the projects

is a mark of the success of

Brazilian cooperation.

The breadth and scale

of Embrapa’s activities is

significant (as seen in Figure 2)

and covers a range of

political, social,

environmental, economic

and development contexts

to be found in Africa.

The Brazilian Agriculture Research

Corporation (Embrapa) has been involvedin international cooperation since itsfounding in 1973. It began with a strongcapacity-building programme of staff inNorth American and European universities,mainly for Masters and PhD degrees, andevolved over time into bilateral andmultilateral agreements with majorinternational agricultural institutions.

Technical cooperation, however, beganwith specific projects, mostly throughcapacity-building actions. The corporation’sspecialists were sent to cooperationpartner countries to deliver directsupport, or technicians from thosecountries were brought to Embrapafor training at their facilities in Brazil.

In 2002, the Government of PresidentLuís Inácio Lula da Silva changed thispicture, due to the emphasis given toSouth-South international technicalcooperation. Agriculture was one ofthe key areas where Brazil could shine,especially in tropical agriculture. In thiscontext, Embrapa, a leading researchinstitution in tropical agriculture, wascalled by the Brazilian governmentto join the programme.

Due to the increasing demand forcooperation, the Brazilian CooperationAgency (ABC), a part of the Ministry ofExternal Relations (MRE), and Embraparedesigned their strategy (an outline ofthe complementary and differentiatedroles of both ABC/MRE and Embrapa ispresented in Figure 1). It shifted frommultiple small projects to fourmajor instruments:

1) Small projects, focused on specificcapacity-building actions. These areusually short-term projects (a few weeksto one year) and involve only one ofEmbrapa’s research centres.

2) Capacity-building programmes—together with Embrapa Capacity-Buildingand Studies (Cecat)—with a portfolioof courses offered to third countries.These courses may be offered on aregular basis, as the Third CountryTraining Programme (TCPT, together withJICA) or on demand. Also, Cecat designsspecific courses to be part of thestructuring projects.

3) The Innovation MarketPlace is apartnership between African, LatinAmerican and Caribbean countries.With a focus on smallholders, theinitiative intends to enhance agriculturalinnovation through partnershipsbetween these countries andBrazilian organisations. The InnovationMarketPlace brings together the full rangeof actors involved in the generation ofagricultural knowledge—research,academia, extension, the private sector,non-governmental organisations,producers and policymakers.The Innovation MarketPlace alsoopens up a new source of expertise to thecountries to identify and target pro-poor,smallholder-based projects utilisingBrazilian innovation research.

by André Nepomuceno Dusi,Embrapa2

South-South Technical

Cooperation in Agriculture:

The Role of Brazil’s Embrapa1

1. Presented at the ‘Seminar on the Role of South-SouthCooperation in Agricultural Development in Africa’,Panel 1, held at Brasília, DF, Brazil on 17 May 2012.

2. Structuring Projects Coordinator,Secretariat for International Affairs, Embrapa.

Source: Embrapa (n. d.).


This activity is co-funded by ABC,Embrapa and several internationalfunding agencies.3

4) Structuring projects: long-termdevelopment projects, embracinginstitutional development togetherwith capacity-building programmes andvalidation of technologies. The Embrapa-ABC programme in Mozambique is anexample of this strategy. Threecomplementary projects are ongoing:Platform (in Portuguese, Plataforma),a project designed to improve thesustainability of the agrarian sectorin Mozambique, aiming to strengthenthe Agrarian Innovation System of thecountry to promote the planning,coordination, control and evaluation of

research activities and the transfer oftechnology; ProSavannah, based on aRegional Development Programme witha 20-year horizon, embraces both thegrowth of agricultural production,through an enhancement of the country’sresearch and extension capabilities, andthe improvement of power sources,storing facilities and transport. The aimsof ProSavannah are to strengthen thecapabilities of the innovation andextension systems in strategic areas, andto improve the competitiveness of thesector both in food security and togenerate exportable surpluses; FoodSecurity, a project that aims to strengthenvegetable production by smallholderproducers and direct the products toboth in natura and processed markets.

Diversification and the growth ofvegetable production will allow anincrease in food supply and improve diets.

Requests for cooperation are usuallychannelled through ABC, and alltechnical cooperation efforts are alignedwith Brazilian foreign policy—givenEmbrapa’s home within the MRE.Projects can also be developed undera trilateral scope, with other internationalcooperation agencies such as theJapanese Interational CooperationAgency (JICA), United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID),the UK Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID). Multilateralcooperation is usually carried out largelyin the context of the structuring projectsand the Innovation MarketPlace.

The use of Embrapa’s own technical staffand the focus on long-term sustainabilityof the development objectives of theprojects is a mark of the success ofBrazilian cooperation. Once projects arestructured, studies on socioeconomicimpacts are employed at the outset togauge demand, the local productionchain, land use, agriculture public policiesand credit, among other things. Such anassessment allows for better design andexecution of a sustainable intervention.

Brazilian South-South Cooperation (SSC)is demand-driven and does nottransfer financial funds directly tothe receiving country. Close interactionwith counterparts is critical for successfulcooperation. Each project has a uniquedesign, looking beyond technologicalpackages in order to sustainably addresslocal needs. The biggest challenge,therefore, in designing the projectsis a clear understandingof localdemands and characteristics.

The breadth and scale of Embrapa’sactivities is significant (as seen in Figure 2)and covers a range of political,social, environmental, economicand development contexts to befound in Africa.

Embrapa and Brazil have gained animpressive international reputationbased on the above-captionedefforts which have defined SSC in theagricultural sector of Africa for a number

Source: Embrapa (n. d.).

Poverty in Focus 27

of years. This leading role by Embraparesulted in an increasing demand forcooperation, especially from Africancountries. Such a leading role is expectedto continue, with an ever increasingdemand for cooperation from African

3. In alphabetical order: Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation, CIAT, DFID, FAO, FARA, Funarbe, IBD,IFAD, IICA, MCT, The Word Bank.

countries. As South-South Cooperationcontinues to be expanded, exploredand debated, Embrapa is also likelyto establish specific bilateral scientificcooperation protocols to benefit Brazilianagriculture and farmers.

Embrapa (n. d.). Africa – A Continent full

of Opportunities for Agricultural Research(Booklet). Brasília, Embrapa.

In recent years, the legitimisationof the role of family farming as anengine of development in Brazil hasbeen reflected in the gradual increasein public funding to the Ministry ofAgrarian Development (MDA). MDA ismandated to stimulate this system ofproduction and respond to the growingdemand for agricultural research andtechnology tailored to the needs ofsuch a system, resulting in sector-specificpolicy and technological innovation.

In addition to its essential contributionto food security, family farming also playsa major role in controlling inflationarypressures, stabilising the balance ofpayments, countervailing rural exodusand generating sustainable solutionsfor the occupation of rural areas. Brazilianpolicies towards family farming are nowincreasingly part of its internationalengagement, particularly in Africa.This article provides an overview of thedomestic experience and discusses howthis is reflected in contemporary Brazil-Africa South-South engagementsin the agricultural domain.

In 2003, the Brazilian governmentcreated a series of policies gearedtowards family farming, encompassingcredit, technical assistance, agriculturalinsurance, price guarantees andpublic procurement. These policieshave provided efficient support tofamily farmers across value chains, withoutstanding results. Indeed, 70 per centof the food consumed by Brazilians is

produced by a dynamic, land-intensiveand diversified family farming sector,whose productivity per hectare isevaluated to be currently 89 per cent higherthan that of large-scale monoculture.

The Brazilian experience suggests that,for a family farming strategy to beeffective, several elements must bepresent. Improved access to credit willonly mire family farmers in debt if theyare not given proper technical assistanceto increase yields. Similarly, potentialgains in productivity obtained by theseservices could lead to overproduction, andsubsequent income shocks, if farmersare not given proper access to markets.MDA’s cooperation efforts have put sucha value-chain perspective into practice.

On the supply side, the followingprogrammes are worth mentioning:

the comprehensive credit system,which includes specific credit linesfor women and young farmers;

family farmer insurance schemes;

building a national technical assistanceand rural extension system; and

sharing the technological andequipment platform createdunder the More Food programme(Mais Alimentos in Portuguese).

On the demand side, the Braziliangovernment has created publicprocurement programmes, namely the

Family farming also plays a

major role in controlling

inflationary pressures,

stabilising the balance of

payments, countervailing

rural exodus and generating

sustainable solutions

for the occupation

of rural areas.

Policy dialogue between

MDA and African Ministries

of Agriculture, with rural

extension workers and

social movements, aim to

strengthen these different

actors, including through

capacity-building workshops

and training courses.

by Thomas Cooper Patriota and Francesco Maria Pierri,Ministry of Agrarian Development of Brazil1

Family Farming for Greater Food Sovereignty

in Africa: Relevance of Brazil’s More Food Africa

1. Both authors work at the Ministry of AgrarianDevelopment of Brazil. They serve as FAO Consultantat the International Advisory Section of the Ministry andthe International Advisor of the Ministry respectively.

This article draws on parts of the forthcoming chapter:“Cooper Patriota, Thomas; Pierri, Francesco Maria (2012),Brazil´s Cooperation for Agriculture Developmentand Food Security in Africa: Assessing the Technology,Finance, and knowledge platforms”, to be published in“Cheru, Fantu; Modi, Renu (eds.) (2012),Agricultural Development and Food Security in Africa:The Impact of Chinese, Indian and Brazilian Investments,London, Zed Books.”


Food Purchase Programme (PAA inPortuguese) and the National SchoolFeeding Programme (PNAE in Portuguese),which have provided a guaranteed marketto family farmers, reducing the volatilityof income caused by unpredictablesales to the private sector.

Drawing on the priorities voiced byAfrican ministers of agriculture whoparticipated in the 2010 ‘Brazil-AfricaDialogue on Food Security, Fight againstHunger and Rural Development’, theBrazilian government created an exportcredit line to convert its More Foodprogramme into an internationalcooperation initiative with Africa.The programme provides a platformfor MDA’s international cooperation ofsupport to small- and medium-scaleagriculture (a sector that comprises themajority of Africa’s labour force) based onthe premise that the Brazilian experiencecan be of great relevance in supportingAfrican countries in attaining greaterfood security, while generating sociallyand environmentally sustainablegrowth in rural areas.

More Food Africa is inspired byits domestic equivalent, a credit linecreated in 2008 by MDA with the goalof attaining strategic food sovereigntyneeds at the onset of the internationalfood price crisis. The programmeprovides family farmers with credit underpreferential terms (a 2 per cent interestrate, 10-year term and three-year graceperiod) to purchase a wide variety ofagricultural equipment and machineryfor small and medium-sized farms atsubsidised prices.

In addition, the programme includesa technical capacity-building element.In the two years since its inception, theprogramme has provided about US$2.2billion in credit, with up to US$56,000 perfamily, bringing about dramatic increasesin family farmers’ productivity andincome, by 89 and 30 per cent, respectively.

It has also provided the Brazilianindustrial sector with a steadily increasingdemand, enabling it to invest in massproduction of new machinery andequipment tailored for family farming.The synergy generated between theaccess for family farmers to the programme

and the consequent demand for small-to medium-scale agricultural machineryhas amounted to a true national-scalecountercyclical industrial policy. FromJanuary to May 2009, 61 per cent ofBrazil’s tractor sales and 41 per centof the agricultural machinery workforcewere driven by the More Food programme.

The ensuing More Food Africa programme,launched by President Lula in 2010, wasbuilt with the purpose of providing notonly ‘soft’ technical assistance and policydialogue but also ‘hard’ machinery andequipment, switching the national creditline used in Brazil for an export financeconcessional loan. It was structured as athreefold programme, consisting of:

a Technical Cooperation Project (TCP)with the goal of facilitating exchangeon technical assistance and ruralextension activities including policydialogues to share the socialtechnologies applied in Brazilianpublic policies;

Credit, in the form of concessionalloans to import relevant agriculturalmachines and equipment; the MoreFood Africa credit line was approvedon November 2010 by the Council ofMinisters of the Brazilian Chamberof Foreign Trade (CAMEX), under thePROEX Concessional modality;2 and

an Agreement with the industrialsector, whereby African countries

formulate a list of suitable items,while MDA negotiates prices withthe manufacturers’ unions, based ona principle of ensuring manufacturingcompanies fair market access.

As of May 2012, five African countries havesigned their TCPs with Brazil, based ontheir national agriculture developmentstrategies (see Table).

As activities take off, different challengesin the implementation of such a large-scale programme on the ground willcertainly arise. Weak institutions and civilsociety organisations, poorly developeddomestic markets, the sheer diversity ofcontexts in beneficiary countries, and thefact that the concept of ‘smallholderagriculture’ used in Africa differssomewhat from what is knownin Brazil (and increasingly in parts ofSouth and Latin America) as ‘familyfarming’ are among these.

Policy dialogue between MDA andAfrican Ministries of Agriculture, withrural extension workers and socialmovements, aim to strengthen thesedifferent actors, including throughcapacity-building workshops andtraining courses. Moreover, MDA willconduct research in the five countrieslisted above, in partnership with Africaninstitutions, to build an empirical andanalytical baseline of each country’sagrarian profile and to effectivelymonitor implementation.

More Food Africa: Status of Implementation

Credit line for

machinery acquisition

(US$ million)

US$ 95.495

US$ 97.590

CAMEX credit line yetto be approved

US$ 98.657

CAMEX credit line yetto be approved

Status of more food

Africa programme

TCP signed;creditapproved by CAMEX

TCP signed;creditapproved by CAMEX

TCP signed

TCP signed;creditapproved byCAMEX

TCP signed

Country policy

framework

Medium Term AgricultureSector Investment Plan2011–2015 (METASIP)

Plano Estratégico para oDesenvolvimento do SetorAgrário 2011–2020

Plan Stratégique Décennalde l’Agriculture

Agricultural GrowthStrategy for the Medium- toLong-Term Plan (2011–2030)

National AgriculturalMechanisation Strategy

Country

Ghana

Mozambique

Senegal

Zimbabwe

Kenya

Poverty in Focus 29

The establishment of a more systematicrelationship with the UN Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO), as wellas with other multilateral and bilateraldevelopment agencies, is alsoenvisaged by MDA.

The concept of ‘family farming’ to someextent encompasses the recent Brazilianexperience, viewing production systemsthrough a comprehensive lens that goesbeyond plot sizes or production patterns.

Indeed, the generalisation of theuse of the concept since the 1990s isa consequence of demands from bothsocial movements and Brazilian academiain an effort to highlight the specificcontext of this group, as labourers andmanagers, defined by economies of scopethrough the diversification of crops andengaging in more sustainable use ofnatural resources.

2. CAMEX budgeted US$640 million for an initialbiennial period under the following conditions:2 per cent interest rate (or Libor, if this rate is below 2 percent at the time of approval), 15-year term and three -yeargrace period (the reimbursement conditions areextended to 17 and five years, respectively, forHeavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs).

Given that Africa’s small-scale farmingsector still provides the livelihoodsof the majority of the population, whatemerges from the ongoing exchangeis a paradigm shift which debunksperceptions of smallholders as part ofa residual problem to be compensatedfor, through either absorption byurban labour markets or social assistance.The Brazilian experience shows that thisis a viable and valuable sector if givenproper incentives and support.

Agência Brasileira de Cooperação(ABC) (2010). Diálogo Brasil-África em

Segurança Alimentar, Combate à Fome,e Desenvolvimento Rural. Brasília, ABC.

Cassel, G. (2010). ‘Políticas para

o desenvolvimento do Brasil Rural2003–2009’. Paper presented at the

International Conference on Dynamicsof Rural Transformations in Emerging

Economies, New Delhi, 14–16 April 2010.

CONSEA, FAO, IICA (2009). Building up

the National Policy and System for Food andNutrition Security: The Brazilian experience.

Brasilia, CONSEA, FAO, IICA.

França, C. et al. (2009). O censo agropecuário2006 e a agricultura familiar no Brasil. Brasília,

Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário (MDA).

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Republicof Ghana (2010). Medium-Term Agriculture

Sector Investment Plan 2011–2015 (METASIP).Accra, Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

Takagi, M. and Graziano da Silva, J. (2011).

‘New and Old Challenges to AchieveFood Security in the 21st Century’ in

J. Graziano da Silva, M. E. Del Grossi andC. França (eds), The Fome Zero (Zero Hunger)

Programme. The Brazilian Experience.Brasília, MDA.

Over the past decade, we haveseen Brazilian polices lead to gainsin the fight against hunger and growth inagricultural productivity and production.These successes have elevated Brazil toa position of reference in agriculturalcooperation. Still, Brazilian South-SouthCooperation (SSC) in agriculture is,unfortunately, fragmented betweencomprehensive hunger eradicationstrategies, technical exchanges ontropical agriculture and investment.

Brazil’s greatest contribution to fightinghunger worldwide should lie in theholistic approach that allowed successdomestically, and integrating agriculturaltechnology within this approach.Technical cooperation focused solelyon promoting the expansion ofagribusinesses is at best an insufficientresponse to a complex phenomenon

such as hunger and at worst canexacerbate the structural causesof hunger and poverty.

Between 2004 and 2009, 26 millionBrazilians exited extreme povertyand vulnerability to hunger (IPEA, 2011).According to the Brazilian SocialDevelopment Ministry (MDS), 36 millionBrazilians entered the so-called middleclass in the past few years (MDS, 2012).

There is a perception among Braziliancivil society actors that the commitmentof the Brazilian government and theengagement of Brazilian society madethis achievement possible. It resultedin a broad strategy, coordinating actionamong several ministries. Civil societyhelped to design actions against hungerand poverty and held the governmentaccountable for its guarantee on the

There is a perception among

Brazilian civil society actors

that the commitment of

the Brazilian government

and the engagement of

Brazilian society made

this achievement possible.

Brazilian South-South

Cooperation in agriculture

should be about fighting

hunger, supporting poor

farmers and implementing

comprehensive approaches

to food security.

Brazilian South-South Cooperation

in Agriculture: a Civil Society Perspectiveby Adriano Campolina, NGO ActionAid Brazil 1

1. Adriano Campolina is an agronomist who graduatedfrom Universidade Federal de Viçosa and holds an MScin Development, Agriculture and Society from CPDA –Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. Currently,he is Executive Director of the NGO ActionAid Brazil.


Family Farmers: A Crucial Policy Choice

The 2006 agriculture census revealed that family farmers contributed significantlyto the production of the items of the Brazilian food basket. Family farmers produced87 per cent of the national production of cassava, 70 per cent of beans, 59 per cent ofpork, 58 per cent of milk, 50 per cent of poultry and 46 per cent of maize (IBGE, 2009).Nonetheless, the incidence of extreme poverty and hunger in rural areas is very high,as 47 per cent of extremely poor people live in rural areas (MDS, 2012). Investing in thissector has increased food production for local markets and strengthened the familyfarming economy, boosting incomes and bolstering poor farmers’ ability to produceand purchase food.

right to food. For instance, in 2009 anational campaign started to mobiliseBrazilian society to include the right tofood among the Brazilian people’sconstitutional rights. The campaign wassuccessful, and the National Congressapproved the constitutional amendmentin early 2010 (ActionAid, 2011). There weretwo key approaches that made the fightagainst poverty and hunger a success:

an acknowledgement of the complexand multi-faceted nature of hungerand, therefore, the need to bringtogether actions related to theavailability and utilisation of andaccess to food; and

the creation of mechanisms toensure the mobilisation of civilsociety to design actions, monitorpolicy implementation at all levelsand ensure accountability.

Brazilian civil society undertook amassive campaign to eradicate hungerin the early 1990s. Although Brazilwas already a net food exporter, civilsociety delivered a clear message: it wasunacceptable that a society that couldproduce so much food still tolerated thatmillions of Brazilians were going hungry.

The campaign achieved immediatesupport from the most vulnerable peoplein society and placed hunger eradicationat the centre of public debate. The WorkersParty (PT) brought this concern into thepolitical arena. Once in power, it startedimplementing a strategy developed inclose consultation with civil society, theZero Hunger (Fome Zero) programme.

Zero Hunger encompasses actionacross four crucial axes, tackling several

dimensions of hunger and poverty.One is access to food, of which thebest known activity is the cash transferprogramme, Bolsa Família.

The School Feeding Programme,access to water and cistern construction,affordable restaurants, local food aid andcommunity kitchens make up the otherelements of this approach.

Another axis concerns income generation,including micro-credit, professionaltraining and building poor people’sproductive associations and cooperatives,among other things. A third axis relatesto supporting poor farmers. Here thestrongest components have been a creditscheme focused on poor farmersthrough the National Programme forStrengthening Family Farming (PRONAF),and the Food Procurement Programme(PAA), through which central governmentbuys food from poor farmers. Thefourth axis concerns social mobilisation

activities, such as the creation of councils.

The reestablishment of the Food andNutritional Security Council (CONSEA)has also been part of the government’sstrategy. The Council has an advisory roleto the President and is composed of civilsociety and government representatives.CONSEA has been crucial in keepingfood security on the political agendaand in developing concrete policyproposals, such as the PAA andSchool Feeding Programme.

CONSEA has also played a crucialrole in strengthening the institutionalarrangements to promote the right tofood through the creation of the Foodand Nutritional Security Law and System(LOSAN and SISAN) and include it amongthe constitutional social rights.

Support to family farming,2 and thepoorest farmers within this sector, hasbeen a crucial policy choice. Brazilianfamily farms produce the largest shareof staple food for domestic consumption,whereas agribusinesses tend to focuson commodities for export marketsand biofuels.

This focus has represented a significantchange in Brazilian policy priorities.For centuries the Brazilian agribusiness

Brazilian civil societyundertook a massivecampaign to eradicatehunger in the early 1990s.Although Brazil was alreadya net food exporter,civil society delivered aclear message: it wasunacceptable that a societythat could produce so muchfood still tolerated thatmillions of Brazilianswere going hungry.

Support to family farming,and the poorest farmerswithin this sector, has beena crucial policy choice.

2. Family farming is a concept that was sociallyconstructed by a number of peasants’ movements inBrazil that called for the recognition of the specificityof this sector and the need for public policies orientedto strengthen it. These movements achieved the legalrecognition of family farming through the approvalof the ‘Family Farming Act’ (Law 11.326/2006).

The act defines a family farmer as one whopredominantly uses family labour and occupies at mostfour rural modules, among other criteria. One ruralmodule is a unit of area equivalent to the minimumrequired to sustain one family. It is regionally definedand can range from around 20 hectares in somesouthern states to 80 hectares in the northern region.

Poverty in Focus 31

sector, employing vast swathes of farmland and wage labourers, was the onlypriority in agricultural policymaking.Until recently, this sector, based heavilyon mono-cropping and oriented towardsexports, benefited from almost all credit,research and extension services providedby public programmes.

The Brazilian National Rural CreditSystem (SNCR) was the only credit toolavailable and treated both large andfamily farmers with the same rules untilthe late 1990s. In the early 1990s fewfamily farmers were able to accessrural credit (Nunes, 2007). Despite beingsubsidised, although not at the levelsof developed countries’ agriculturalsubsidies, the programme was unableto distribute income locally in anequitable way and had a poor recordin terms of its environmental, labourand social impacts (Soares, 2003).

Through the successful Zero Hungerstrategy the government has clearlychosen to focus on a holistic approach,investing heavily in family farmingsystems and creating food securitypolicies which are accountable andaddress the needs of vulnerablecommunities. The government has alsocontinued to support agribusinesses, but,as far as fighting hunger is concerned,the focus has been on family farmingand on poor farmers in particular.

Considering the power of agribusiness,the creation of policies focused on familyfarming has been a major politicalachievement. The establishment ofspecific credit, procurement, extensionand even research programmesfor family farming and poor farmershas been the only way to guaranteethe access of these farmers to the publicgoods generated through better policy.

When it comes to South-SouthCooperation in agriculture we shouldconsider the lessons of recent Brazilianrural development and how differentsectors have disputed agricultural publicpolicies and to what effect.

There are several ongoing cooperationprogrammes and projects based onBrazilian domestic experiences infighting hunger. Technical cooperation

based on PAA and PRONAF, for instance,clearly contributes to strengtheningpoor farmers’ communities and createsopportunities to tackle the accessibilityand availability of food together.Cooperation on agricultural researchfocused on technologies that aredesigned specifically for poor farmersand their condition is also essential.

However, reflecting the contradictionsfound within Brazilian agriculture, we canalso observe a number of South-Southinitiatives that seem oriented primarilytowards strengthening the agribusinesssector in other developing countries.

Technical cooperation focused ontechnology, research, credit schemesand extension services oriented towardslarge-scale mono-cropping seems to bepart of the recent growth in BrazilianSouth-South Cooperation in agriculture.

These patterns can be seen in theso-called ‘ethanol diplomacy’, throughwhich Brazil has implemented a numberof agreements focused on promotingethanol production in many countries,such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica,China and India.

In 2009 the Brazilian government createdthe Pro-Renova, a specific programmefocused on expanding ethanolproduction in Africa, with activities inseveral countries (Oliveira Filho, 2010).Another example is the technicalcooperation within the Pro-Savanaproject in Mozambique.

It seems to provide technologicalsupport for the expansion of soybean,maize and cotton production andto create the conditions for newinvestments by Brazilian agribusinessesin Mozambique (LRAN, 2011).

Brazilian South-South Cooperation inagriculture should be about fightinghunger, supporting poor farmers andimplementing comprehensiveapproaches to food security.

It should avoid an undue focuson technological exchanges, unlessthese are attuned to the needs of poorfarmers—i.e. balance social and economicimperatives. Agricultural cooperation

should take a comprehensive approachtowards poverty and hunger. This can bedone by focusing on the knowledge andtechnologies that are appropriate topromoting the empowermentof poor farmers.

These cooperation strategies shouldalso share experiences of creatingaccountability mechanisms with civilsociety participation (especiallyby poor farmers and women).

These mechanisms are very important toensure that policies benefit poor farmers,in the same way in which CONSEA hasbeen an effective institutional frameworkand mechanism in the Brazilian context.

If Brazilian South-South Cooperationsupports only agribusinesses, throughtechnological and policy exchanges, wemight end up supporting large landowners who fail to share the benefitsof growth, potentially evicting poorfamers and prospering whilehunger silently grows.

ActionAid Brasil (2011). Relatório Anual2010. Rio de Janeiro, ActionAid Brasil,

<http://www.actionaid.org.br/Portals/0/Docs/relatorioAnual_2010.pdf>(accessed 29 May 2012).

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística(IBGE) (2009). ‘Censo Agropecuário—

Agricultura familiar 2006’, comunicaçãosocial 30 de setembro de 2009.

Rio de Janeiro, IBGE.

IPEA (2011). ‘Mudanças Recentesna Pobreza Brasileira’, Comunicados IPEA

No. 111. Brasília, IPEA.

Land Research Action Network (LRAN)(2011). ‘Moçambique oferece terra à soja

brasileira’, <http://www.landaction.org/spip.php?article619&lang=en>

(accessed 18 May 2012).

MDS (2012). ‘É o Estado chegandoaonde a pobreza está’,

<http://www.brasilsemmiseria.gov.br/apresentacao-2> (accessed 18 May 2012).

Nunes, S. P. (2007). ‘O crédito rural do Pronaf

e os recentes instrumentos de políticaagrícola para a agricultura familiar’, Boletim

Eletrônico, Conjuntura Agrícola, No. 156,February 2007. Curitiba, Deser.

Oliveira Filho, L. A. B. (2010). Cooperação

internacional na produção de etanol: limitese oportunidades. Masters’s dissertation.

Campinas, EESP-FGV.

Soares, A. C. (2003). A multifuncionalidadeda agricultura familiar. Rio de Janeiro,

ActionAid Brasil.


Economic development isnecessary but insufficient, alone,to bring about full gender equality.In spite of representing a significantshare—40 per cent—of the world’slabour force, women are still requiredto justify their recognition as politicalactors and for their economic, political,social and cultural roles. According to theWorld Bank (2012), throughout societies,women still receive on average US$0.80to every dollar earned by men incomparable tasks.

Inequality is more acute in thosecircumstances in which poverty iscombined with other exclusionarypractices based, for example, on physicaldisability, sexual orientation, ethnicityor race. In both Paraguay and Brazil,women represent 47 per cent of therural population. Of the 16.27 millionpeople living in extreme poverty inBrazil, 71 per cent are afro-descendent and46 per cent live in rural areas (MDS, 2011).Of the total rural female population 60per cent are afro-descendent and32 per cent are economically active(Marcha das Margaridas, 2011).

In sub-Saharan Africa, rural womenworkers make up more than 50 percent of the workforce. Women domore unpaid work than men in allregions (UN Women, 2012). Withdifficulties in achieving economicindependence and participating indecision-making processes aboutfinancial resources or the family’sinvestment priorities—even when theycontribute with their work to generatethe results—women’s direct accessto goods and services is limited.

Statistics from the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) show thatof the US$18.4 billion invested in

support of agriculture between 2002and 2008, only 5.6 per cent tookgender into consideration.

More broadly, poverty and invisibilitycharacterise the broad landscape andexperience of rural women in Brazil andSouthern Cone countries. Even whenwomen participate in developmentprocesses, they become ‘invisible’, as theirwork is often seen largely in a supportiverole to men’s work. Although womenconstitute, on average, 43 per cent ofthe agricultural workforce in developingcountries and about 20 per cent in LatinAmerica (FAO, 2010), fewer than 20 percent of landowners are women.

For rural women under the householdeconomy, agricultural work is anextension of housework. In addition towater management and domestic work,women extensively participate in fieldwork, perform minor agriculturalactivities, commercialise homeproduction and look after animals.

These activities are not considered workas such because they are not accountedfor in monetary terms. The omission ofthese tasks from valuation metricsand cost–benefit analysis limits therecognition of the magnitude of ruralwomen’s economic contributionto society as a whole.

Some of the discrepancies betweenland operation and land ownershipare highlighted in the Figure next page.

After decades of seeing the rural manas the farmer and the woman as hisassistant, a generation of feministsworked to refute this widespreadmistaken view, to show that the genderdivision of labour is heterogeneous,varying by region, main growingproduct, ethnicity, market structure etc.

Social inequality is a

central feature of African,

Latin American and Afro-

Caribbean reality. It remains

a key issue that must be

confronted to eliminate

poverty, generate decent jobs

and ensure social justice and

democratic governance.

For rural women under

the household economy,

agricultural work is an

extension of housework.

In the award-winning

‘Straw Hat’ programme,

UN Women supports the

government of the state of

Pernambuco and the state’s

Secretariat of Policies for

Women in the implementation

of activities directed at

rural women. Since 2008,

more than 38,000 have

been empowered.

by Eunice Borges, UN Women Brazil1

Good Social Practice for Whom: the CatalyticRole of Rural Women’s Experience and Leadership

1. Leadership and Political ParticipationArea Coordinator at the UN Women Braziland Southern Cone office based in Brasilia.

Poverty in Focus 33

and that in many situations womenare the principal farmers, with theirnumber increasingly growing(León and Deere, 1982, 1986).

Moving beyond poverty:

social practice in tackling inequality

Social inequality is a central featureof African, Latin American and Afro-Caribbean reality. It remains a key issuethat must be confronted to eliminatepoverty, generate decent jobs and ensuresocial justice and democratic governance.

However, gender discrimination createsadditional barriers for women toeffectively exercise their rights, accessgoods and services and contribute tothe growth and development of theircountries. The United Nations considersimplementation of Social ProtectionFloors around the world a centralcondition for sustainable economicdevelopment. An extension of socialprotection responds not only to humanrights and the human rights of women,but to an economic necessity.

The persistence of this large numberof excluded persons represents anenormous waste of human and economicpotential, especially in the context ofaccelerated demographic ageing incountries with low levels of health and

social security coverage. The concept ofthe Social Protection Floor (ILO, 2011)adopted by the United Nations and bythe G20 refers to an integrated andcoordinated set of basic income transferpolicies combined with guaranteedaccess to essential health, education,sanitation, nutrition, employment,housing and other programmes.

Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemalaand Peru already promote incometransfer programmes that targetpoor households, and, although notexclusively aimed at women, someprogrammes feature the role of womenas managers of transferred resources.A few are directly targeted at indigenousand afro-descendent women, focusingon cultural recognition of their rightsand support for their role as smallproducers and artisans.

UN Women Brazil and Southern Conehas supported several programmes andprojects run by governmental and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with acentral focus on economic empowermentand political participation, particularlyof the historically marginalised afro-descendent and indigenous women.In the award-winning ‘Straw Hat’programme, UN Women supports thegovernment of the state of Pernambuco

and the state’s Secretariat of Policiesfor Women in the implementation ofactivities directed at rural women.

Since 2008, more than 38,000 have beenempowered. In 2010, policies for ruralwomen were systematised, and theSecretariat created, in close dialoguewith civil society organisations, thefirst Brazilian Plan of Public Policies forRural Women. With UN Women’s support,Articulation of Black Brazilian Womenand the National Council of IndigenousWomen, along with the feministand women’s movements, throughthe Special Secretariat of Policiesfor Women in partnership with theMinistry of Agrarian Development,incorporated a rural women’s actionplan in the Second National PoliciesPlan for Women.

Specific initiatives regarding ruralwomen were also included as a priority inseveral areas by the federal government,especially those supporting the effectivecitizenship and economic rights of ruralwomen. UN Women also supportsprogrammes that target afro-descendentquilombola women, such as Brazil’sQuilombola Programme or the Quilomboof the Americas project. Coordinated bythe Special Secretary of Public Policiesfor Racial Equity, Brazil’s Quilombola

Source: World Bank (2012: 226).

Brazil, Chile,Colombia,Guatemalaand Peru promoteincome transferprogrammesthat targetpoor households.Some of thesefeature the roleof women asmanagers oftransferredresources.


Programme aggregates 23 bodiesof the federal public administrationand seeks to guarantee the rightsof quilombola communities.

Regarding indigenous women’srights, UN Women has supported abi-national project at the Brazil-Paraguayborder, implemented by the BrazilianInstitute of Healthy Social Innovations(IBISS-CO), two Paraguayan NGOs(Social Research/BASE-IS and Survival)and national indigenous organisations.

The project trains indigenous womenleaders from both Brazil and Paraguay to

Now, 20 years after Planet Fêmea, workingwomen of the fields and forests fromBrazil and the rest of the world willmeet at the People’s Summit at Rio+20.

They will share experiences and goodsocial practices towards stronger andmore sustainable democratic andeconomic participation. Although Africanand Latin American rural women sharediffering realities, both are strivingto be listened to. Their ever-expandingempowered presence and leadershippoints to a number of catalytic responsesthat are transforming advocacyand activism into sustained policyengagement, reform and innovations.

FAO (2010). El Estado Mundial de laAgricultura y la Alimentación. Las mujeres

en la agricultura. 2010, Roma.

International Labour Organization (ILO)(2011) Social Protection Floor for a Fair and

Inclusive Globalization. Geneva, ILO,<http://www.ilo.org/empent/units/green-jobs-programme/about-the-programme/WCMS_165750/lang--en/index.htm>


Marcha Das Margaridas 2011. “Margaridasna luta por: Desenvolvimento sustentável

com justiça, autonomia, igualdade eliberdade. Caderno de textos

para estudo e debates”<http://portal.saude.gov.br/portal/arquivos/pdf/marcha_margaridas_caderno.pdf>.

Ministério do desenvolvimento social ecombate à fome. “Nota técnica MDS”.

Maio 2011. <http://www.mds.gov.br/saladeimprensa/noticias/2011/maio/arquivos/11.05.02_Nota_Tecnica_Perfil_A.doc/view>.

UN Women calculations based onthe OECD Creditor Reporting System

(CRS) database <http://stats.oecd.org>;extract from UN Women Publication

“Gender Justice: Key to Achieving theMillennium Development Goals”

September 2010, page 9.

León, Magdalena y C.D. Deere (1982)Women in Andean Agriculture: Peasant

Production and Rural Wage Employment inColombia and Peru. International Labour

Office, Geneva.

León, Magdalena y C.D. Deere (eds.) (1986)Rural Women and State Policy: Feminist

Perspectives on Latin America andAgricultural Development.

Westview, Boulder.

UN Women (2012). 2011–2012 Progressof the World’s Women. In Pursuit of Justice.

New York, NY, UN Women, 105.

World Bank (2012). World DevelopmentReport 2012: Gender Equality and

Development. Washington, DC,World Bank.

organise broad efforts to recogniseand respond to human trafficking inthe region. As a result, small groups ofindigenous women leaders are workingwith local NGOs to organise communityprevention and response mechanismsto protect women and girls fromexploitation by traffickers, reachingindirectly at least 4,000 indigenouswomen. The Brazilian National Secretariatof Justice has invited national NGOs toreplicate the methodology as partof its National Plan to FightTrafficking in Persons.

From economic empowerment to other

forms of socio-political participation

Although they are a significantconstituency of a number of highlyvisible marginalised groups (poor, blackor indigenous women), rural womenstill represent an unrecognised power.Brazilian women participate in theproduction of 70 per cent of foodproducts. Between 2001 and 2009, theproportion of Brazilian families headedby women rose from about 27 per centto 35 per cent. In absolute terms, almost22 million families identified a woman asthe main breadwinner. Yet, weak or highlynuanced economic power is often beliedby clear social leadership roles andactivism on broad social issues.

In Brazil and the Southern Cone, ruralwomen are leaders of grassrootsorganisations, associations andcommunity groups. They are partof the broad women’s and feministmovements, actively participating inthe upward processes of restructuringand implementating public policies,becoming proactive actors and nolonger passive beneficiaries.

‘Working women of the fields and forests’proved their ability to reach consensusand coordinate mass demonstrations andorganise advocacy activities at theexecutive and legislative levels.

In 2011, Marcha das Margaridas presenteda political platform for “sustainabledevelopment with justice, autonomy,equality and freedom”. It represented 10national women’s and feminist networks,more than 400 unions and 27 federationsand gathered 70,000 women on thestreets of the Brazilian capital.

The Quilombo of theAmericas—Articulation ofAfro-rural Communitiesproject aims to promotefood sovereignty andexpand access to economic,social and cultural rights ofafro-rural communities inEcuador, Panamáand Brazil.

Brazilian women participatein the production of 70per cent of food products.Between 2001 and 2009,the proportion of Brazilianfamilies headed by womenrose from about 27 per centto 35 per cent. In absoluteterms, almost 22 millionfamilies identified a womanas the main breadwinner.

Although African andLatin American ruralwomen share differingrealities, both are strivingto be listened to.

Poverty in Focus 35

.

Developing countries are heavilydependent on their natural resources.Certain forms of exploitation of naturalresources can be very problematic fordevelopment. Structurally, these activitiesare often hierarchical and exclusive, withfew opportunities to include low-incomegroups; they operate as enclaves at thepoint of exploitation, i.e. with verylimited backward and forward linkagesto the rest of the economy. These arecharacterised by low technological anddemand dynamism, and produce anumber of long-term negativesocial and environmental externalities(Hirschman, 1958; Sachs and Warner, 2001;Auty, 1990; Marin et al., 2012).

A very common approach to thisproblem in developing countries hasbeen to tax natural resource activitiesheavily so as to induce a structural shiftaway from them and into other sectors,hopefully more beneficial fordevelopment, such as knowledge-intensive sectors.

Though undeniably necessary,this approach is challenging giventhe political economy context in whichnatural resource industries operate:they tend to be economically significant,both in terms of gross domestic product(GDP) and employment.

While this can appear quite alarming,since developing economies riskremaining locked into internationalcommodity markets, it also raises thequestion as to whether these incumbentsectors can instead be restructured.

Indeed, a key policy question thatemerges from the realities of resource-dependent growth is: can naturalresource sectors be transformed andrestructured in ways that render thissector less problematic for developing

The interlinked problems

of limited inclusion and

long-term environmental

damage formed the basis for

increasing public protests in

challenging the sustainability

of the soya model.

A key policy question

that emerges from the

realities of resource-

dependent growth is: can

natural resource sectors be

transformed and restructured

in ways that render this

sector less problematic for

developing economies?

Two types of transformative

alternatives often emerge:

path-breaking and

path-repairing.

The main task of policy,

is to identify promising

transformative alternatives

and, remove the main

barriers that place obstacles

in the path of the diffusion

of these alternatives.

economies? These possibilities, which arehighly relevant to broader discussionsabout green growth and both global andlocal green economies, are the focus ofthis article. It explores this question,drawing lessons from experience inArgentina principally, and in the contextof its agricultural sector. Lessons that are ofrelevance to African agricultural futures.

Characterising

transformation and change

Industries are transformed andrestructured through the emergence anddiffusion of transformative alternatives,or projects which propose technologies andorganisational practices that depart from theconventional ones. Within each industrythere are dominant ways of solvingproblems, and alternative ways ofaddressing them. These dominant waysprivilege mainstream concepts and ideas,and are highly institutionalised, benefitingtypically from a historic accumulation oftechnological, institutional, infrastructuraland social support.

Alternative pathways can be defined aspractices that depart from the ‘norm’ or‘business as usual’ and typically promisedifferent economic, social and/orenvironmental results, often leadingto significant structural change. If theyprosper, this structural change can takethe form of full transformation ofindustries, either by creating diversity orby replacing the problematic practicesof the dominant system.

Two types of transformative alternativesoften emerge in this context:

(a) path-breaking, or oriented to takethe industry into a completely differentdirection of change, or

(b) path-repairing, or oriented to improveor repair the dominant pathway.

Putting Natural Resource Industries to Work

for Sustainable Development: Lessons forSouth-South Cooperation by Anabel Marin 1

1. A researcher specialised in Innovationand Development. Since 2009 she has served asa researcher with Cenit (Centro de Investigacionespara la transformacion)/Conicet, Argentina.

The main ideas of this article were developedwithin the context of a project funded by IDRC:Opening up Natural Resource-based Industriesfor Innovation: exploring new pathways fordevelopment in Latin America.


These are useful in defining not justthe nature of the change desired but thelikely process for realistic change andthe dynamics entailed. Still, whilepromising, these proposed pathwaysare often limited and challenged togrow organically or to self-replicateand expand.

Often they cannot, by themselves,compete against more entrenchedinstitutional forces which definethe nature of the ‘environmental’within the dominant socio-technicalregime. These arise from a host ofprocesses that promote stabilityand perpetuate the dominant regime(Walker, 2000; Unruh, 2000).

The main task of policy, thus, is toidentify promising transformativealternatives and, remove the mainbarriers that place obstacles in the pathof the diffusion of these alternatives.

An excellent example of such resistance/barriers is the challenge faced in creatinga niche for agro-ecological or organicfarming practices in agriculture.As an alternative to the dominantsoya-based intensive agriculturalmodel in countries such as Argentina2

(see Figure), efforts to promote it facedsignificant challenges.

One of the reasons for this is that themassive diffusion of a technologicalpackage during the 1990s, includingtransgenic (genetically modified – GM)seeds, zero tillage, biocides and fertilisers,

had achieved a number of positiveresults: substantial productivityand economic gain. Still, the interlinkedproblems of limited inclusion and long-term environmental damageformed the basis for increasing publicprotests in challenging the sustainabilityof the soya model.

Among these:

increasing levels of concentration

of three different types:

(i) economic (between 1992 and2002, 87,688 small and medium-sized farms disappeared);

(ii) of activities (soybean area hasincreased at the expense of dairy,maize, wheat, fruit and livestockproduction); and

(iii) of knowledge, since a fewmultinational corporations (MNCs)control a significant share of thetechnology in use including keyinputs to the production system,such as GM seeds and herbicides;

significant employment lossesand shifts within the rural economy,reducing the labour-intensity ofproduction. The soya production/technological package employsonly two workers for every 1000hectares. In Argentina, agriculturallabour as a share of overall labouris about 9.5 per cent, compared toa global average of 34.8 per cent(WRI, 2012);

environmental damage in the form ofdeforestation, high consumptionof water and energy, soildestruction etc.; and

substantial health risks, resultingfrom the proliferation of herbicidesand GM seeds (see Figure).

Emerging trends of efforts to

decouple the agricultural economy

from environmental degradation

and social exclusion

The diffusion of certain types of agro-ecological or organic practices andthe expansion of farming models—particularly cooperative ones which atthe same time address environmentaland social challenges—can help toredirect agricultural activity in a moresustainable direction,3 as well as creatingmore diversity of options, practices andcapabilities. Still, important barriers forthe diffusion of these alternative modelsremain and require the support of activeand catalytic policies if they are to besustained and mainstreamed. Importantconsiderations include:

Economics (micro): Input-intensivemono-crop solutions are simple andproven and benefit from significantstructural support through research,publicity, economies of scale andpositive network externalities.Transformative alternatives, at thebeginning at least, thus, need thesupport of the government to offsetor balance out these disadvantages.

2. Something similar is happening in Brazil,but I will focus here in the case of Argentina.

3. Organic farming proposes the elimination of inputsbased on chemical synthesis and others with real orpotential toxic effect for human health and the rationaluse of natural resources. Agro-ecology rests onecological interactions and synergies betweenbiological components within the farm rather thanrequiring external inputs. These two ways of farmingrespect and recreate biodiversity and, therefore, aremore sustainable from an environmental point of view.At the same time, both systems are also suitable forsmall farmers, who lack resources to buy expensiveinputs, so potentially they can incorporatebetter social results.

4. The same happens in Brazil, where they aretypically addressed by the Ministry of AgrarianDevelopment (MDA).

Source: Grinberg, E., forthcoming.

Poverty in Focus 37

Existing capabilities are mostlyrelated to the dominant regime—for example, agronomists mainlyprovide advice about input-intensivesolutions and often are limited intheir capacity to offer other solutionsto common agronomic problems.The broadening of the existingcurricula in agronomy and otherrelated fields could deliver significantprogress in expanding a multi-sectoraland multi-disciplinary approach totransformational change in theagriculture sector.

Existing infrastructure—machineryand other forms of hardwaretechnology—are mostly contaminatedwith non-organic elements—forexample, GM crops—making it difficultor impossible for them to be used byand in organic or agro-ecologicalproduction systems and processes.Targeted investments are criticalfor expanding the availability ofnewer and alternative technologiesincluding those specifically definedfor the organic/agro-ecologicalproduction system.

Institutions: Intellectual PropertyRights regulations often serve,it seems, to protect the interestsof large farmers and MNCs inthe business sector while beingmuch less effective in promotingand protecting access to and thediffusion of knowledge to aplurality of actors. The same canbe said about certification systems.Lessons from the Argentineanexperience suggest an important rolefor governments in exploring andencouraging a diversity of systems,including participative ones, andmoving away from an over-relianceon one or two dominant models.

Politics and power: Incumbentshold important positions inthe current system. The currentstructure of the agricultural systemin Argentina ensures that the voicesof big business are more likely to beheard by influential stakeholderssuch as Monsanto, Singenta, Dow andBayer in a forum such as Conabia, themain body responsible for approvingGM technologies.

To date, Argentina has approachedsmall business ventures and alternativesto the input-intensive solutions via socialpolicies, typically through the Ministry ofSocial Wealth or marginally within theMinistry of Agriculture.4 It is obvious,however, that to address the kindof problems discussed above, andthe growing push for transformativechange of the economy as a whole on agreener path, particularly for naturalresource-intensive sectors like agriculture,will require a more comprehensive andinclusive policy approach.

Such an approach could start fromthe basis of engaging on issues oftechnological, economic and educationalpolicies among others, and should takeinto account the possibility of theco-existence of multiple solutionsto agricultural problems.

Auty, R. (1990). Resource-based

industrialization: Sowing the oil ineight developing countries. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Grinberg, E. (forthcoming):Aspectos controversiales del régimen

de acumulación en Argentina: El caso de lasoja transgénica, Revista IBEROAMÉRICA

GLOBAL: “Economía y Crecimiento enAmérica Latina”.

Hirschman, A. (1958). Strategy of

economic development. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Marin, A.; Navas-Aleman, L. and

Perez, C. (2012): “The possible dynamicrole of natural resource-based networks

in Latin American development strategies”,under review, for the Special issue:

Globalisation and the changing geographiesof production and innovation: towards an

evolutionary perspective to economicdevelopment, Journal of Economic

and Social Geography. Editors:Andrea Morrison and Lucia Cusmano.

<http://www.carlotaperez.org/papers/CEPAL-SEGIB%20Project.html>.

Sachs J. and Warner A. (2001).

“The curse of natural resources”.European Economic Review, Vol. 45,

Nos. 4/6, pp. 827-838.

Unruh, G. C. (2000) Understandingcarbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28, 817-830.

Walker, W. (2000) Entrapment in large

technology systems: institutionalcommitment and power relations.

Research Policy, 29, 833-846.

World Resources Institute(2012). ‘Labor share by country’,

<http://www.NationMaster.com/graph/agr_lab_sha-agriculture-labor-share>


Importantconsiderations include:

Economics (micro);Existing capabilities;Existing infrastructure;Institutions andPolitics and power

The growing push fortransformative change ofthe economy as a wholeon a greener path, couldstart from the basisof engaging on issues oftechnological, economicand educational policiesamong others, and shouldtake into account theco-existence ofmultiple solutions.

Lessons from theArgentinean experiencesuggest an important rolefor governments inexploring and encouraginga diversity of systems,including participative ones,and moving away from anover-reliance on one or twodominant models.


A key role of KBOs is to work

with the media, universities

and civil society organisations

to expand and qualify the

debate, based on evidence.

After decades of demobilisation,due to the debt crisis and macroeconomicproblems,2 President Luiz Inácio Lula daSilva’s administration turned South-SouthCooperation3 into a priority of foreignpolicy. In the case of internationaldevelopment cooperation, the modalityof South-South Cooperation focused onin this article, his administration tookimportant steps to expand the country’sprovision of technical cooperation interms of sectors and destination countries,4

as well as to gather, systematise andpublish information on these activities.5

Brazilian cooperation has beeninternationally praised for its focuson institutional capacity-buildingand on initiatives aimed at tacklingprimary development challenges, suchas food security and poverty reduction.However, such projections have notalways been accompanied by adequateinstruments to allow the government tomeet exponential demands. Limitationsin terms of budget6 and personnel,7 aswell as poor institutional coordinationamong agencies engaged in initiativesabroad,8 have been constraining furtherexpansion in the delivery of Braziliantechnical cooperation.

At the same time, national agenciesengaged in international developmentcooperation accumulated a lot ofinformation over recent years, whichthey are now able to reflect on due to thenew president’s lower profile in foreignpolicy.9 Important reflection processesare taking place, for instance, in theministries of Health, Education, HumanRights and Agrarian Development, aswell as in partners such as the NationalService on Industrial Learning (Senai)and the Brazilian Agriculture ResearchCorporation (Embrapa). Demands forimproving the effectiveness of Braziliancooperation have been matched by

growing interest in the themeby national knowledge-basedorganisations (KBOs), thus creatinga positive environment for them toinfluence all levels of public policy.

The role of knowledge-based

organisations

Interdependency and the overwhelmingvelocity of change characterise our worldtoday, as do increasingly complex socialchallenges and crises that transcendnational borders. In this context, weoften cannot properly cope with the vastamount of information available.Therefore, organisations that focus ongenerating policy research and filtering,sorting and synthesising information toproduce analysis for policymaking seemhighly desirable. Indeed, KBOs haveincreased their numbers and role inglobal policymaking (McGann, 2012).

The role of KBOs is not confined toinforming the government. Part oftheir task is to work with the media,universities and civil society organisationsto expand and qualify the debate, basedon evidence. They have also becomeimportant actors in formulatingand expanding the global discourseon development, inequality, climatechange etc. Although KBOs are justone of a variety of civil society actors,they often become representativesof civil society in global policymaking,ensuring excluded voices influenceinternational policymaking.

Together with various other groupsfrom civil society—non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs), faith-basedorganisations and labour unions, amongothers—KBOs have made an importantcontribution on the political side,as they have constituted strong pro-developmental coalitions and pressuredtheir respective governments to maintain

From Transfers to Equal Exchange:

Advancing the Role of Southern Knowledgein International Development Cooperation

by Bianca Suyama and Iara Leite, Articulação SUL 1

1. Both authors are researches at Articulação SUL,South-South Cooperation Research and Policy Centre.

2. For an overview of the phases of South-SouthCooperation, see Leite (2012) and Sá e Silva (2009).

3. South-South Cooperation has been broadly definedas any cooperative relation involving governmentalor nongovernmental actors based in two or morecountries the so-called “Global South” (Bobiash, 1992;UNDP SU/SSC, n.d.). For more information on theconcept of SSC, see Leite (2012).

4. According to official data raised by Cabral andWeinstock (2010), 413 projects were initiated in 2009,while only 23 had been initiated in 2003. Since thereare no systematised data on the engagement in theprovision of development cooperation by previousadministrations, it is not possible to unequivocallyaffirm that such expansion has no historical precedent.

5. Lula’s administration took unprecedented steps toregister, systematise and publish data related to theprovision of international development cooperation.See, for instance, Instituto de Pesquisa EconômicaAplicada (IPEA) and Agência Brasileira de Cooperação(ABC) (2010), ABC (2009) and Ministério das RelaçõesExteriores (MRE) (2007).

6. Budgetary limitations were introduced by the newadministration, headed by President Dilma Rousseff.In 2011, the Brazilian Cooperation Agency’s budgetwas frozen after having more than tripled between2008 and 2010 (see data in Secretariat for SocialCommunication, Presidency of the FederativeRepublic of Brazil, 2011).

7. Brazilian technical cooperation is mainly deliveredby public officers, who are allowed to go abroad onlyfor short-term missions and who combine functionsperformed abroad with the ones performed domestically.

8. For more information on the institutions thatprovide Brazilian international cooperation,see Vaz and Inoue (2007).

9. Such trends are helping to mitigate the role ofpresidential diplomacy in taking demands to ministriesand other agencies without considering their capacity torespond to them. President Dilma’s strong managerialprofile and approach seems to be forcing agenciesengaged in the provision of technical cooperation toshow that their initiatives are really generatingtangible results.

Poverty in Focus 39

Brazilian Knowledge-based Organisations Working on International Development Cooperation

Name of the initiative/

organisation

Articulação SUL, South-

South Cooperation

Research and Policy Centre

Brazilian Cooperation for

International Development

(COBRADI) research

programme

Brazilian NGO Platform

(ABONG)

BRICS Policy Center

Emerging Powers and

Foreign Policy research

programmes

Igarapé Institute

Humanization of

Development Network

Hosted in

Brazilian Center for Analysis andPlanning (Cebrap)

Directory of Studies on EconomicRelations and International Policy/Institute for Applied EconomicResearch (DINTE/IPEA)

ABONG

Pontifical Catholic Universityof Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)

Center for International Relations/Contemporary Brazilian HistoryResearch and DocumentationCenter/Getúlio Vargas Foundation(CPDOC/FGV-Rio)

Igarapé Institute

Humanization ofDevelopment Network

Summary of activities

Works exclusively on international development cooperation inBrazil to improve the linkages between policy research, advocacyand practice. It works with governments and civil society on appliedresearch and capacity-building projects, as well as promotingcoordination and policy dialogue spaces.Website: http://www.articulacaosul.org

Data collection, systematisation and analysis on Brazilianprovision of development cooperation.Website: http://www.ipea.gov.br

Has published a brief and policy position on Brazilian internationaldevelopment cooperation and has promoted different meetingsto foster debate on international development cooperation.Website: http://www.abong.org.br

Specific area of research on technical, scientific and technologicalcooperation. It has been producing policy briefs and events to discussthe role of Brazil on international development cooperation.Website: http://bricspolicycenter.org/

Has a research project aiming at understanding emerging powers’foreign policy, including their engagement in internationaldevelopment cooperation.Website: http://cpdoc.fgv.br/relacoesinternacionais

Developing a project focused on the role of Brazilian technicalcooperation in post-conflict settings and is building two rostersaimed at identifying, screening and training Brazilian civilexperts from the government as well as from civil society.Website: http://www.igarapesocial.com.br/

Launched a publication focused on international developmentcooperation, Redes de Cooperação, besides having organised aseminar and an extension course in partnership with theUniversity of Brasília in 2011.Website: http://rede-humanizacao.tk/

budgets destined for internationaldevelopment cooperation in timesof political and/or economic domesticturns (Lancaster, 2007).

Knowledge inequities in international

development cooperation

North-South power disparities inknowledge production and disseminationare expressed by power imbalances in theinternational development architecture.10

However, the rise of emerging economiesand the expansion of South-SouthCooperation are helping to breakthe monopoly of traditional donorsin setting the concepts, practice andparadigms of international developmentcooperation aimed at combating globalchallenges such as poverty, socialjustice and climate change. Such trendscan support the political empowermentof the South and promote diversity

10. Knowledge is understood as “constructs, assumptionsand beliefs by which people understand and interpretthe world around them. In systems of domination,knowledge serves the function of justifying hierarchicalrelations” (Girvan, 2007: 6). The importance ofalternatives to dominant epistemologies is alsoextensively discussed in Santos and Meneses (2010).


in international debates. The roleof Southern-based KBOs in thisprocess is critical.

The aid effectiveness debate has stressedthe importance of home-grown solutions,through its focus on ownership (Dattaand Young, 2011). That entails a shift inhow we approach development research.Girvan (2007) proposed that such a shiftshould de based on three principles:(1) diversity as an intrinsic characteristicof the global community; (2) specificity innational context as the departing pointfor research and policymaking; and(3) local knowledge, effort and initiativeas the key resources in development.

Therefore, the establishment andstrengthening of national KBOs backedby financial and technical supportfrom the international community isindispensable. Additionally, networks ofthink-tanks and civil society organisationscan provide an extremely effectivemechanism for learning and innovation,and enable collaboration beyondthe usual institutional, cultural andfunctional boundaries of an organisation.

The contributions of Brazilian

knowledge- based organisations

Several academic and/or policyprogrammes directly or indirectlydedicated to South-South DevelopmentCooperation have been launched inBrazil over recent years. They are makingimportant contributions to consolidatingand professionalising the internationaldevelopment cooperation field in thecountry. Some examples are listed inTable, page 39.

Recognising that a well-informed publicdialogue is at the heart of sound policydecisions and successful developmentstrategies, the initiatives describedabove are creating opportunities forimproving the quality, effectivenessand accountability of BrazilianSouth-South Cooperation.Additionally, ensuring that nationalpolicies and practices are informed byempirical evidence and monitored andevaluated by independent organisationswill also be decisive for technicalagencies engaged in the sector tohave more influence over the prioritiesof Brazilian cooperation.

On the other hand, there is a strong needto promote dialogue among civil societyactors in Brazil and in partner countries,and to support civil society engagementwith their respective governments.

We believe this will be fundamentalto guarantee that respecting nationalsovereignty—i.e. planning internationalengagement according to nationalpriorities—will result in initiativesthat benefit the most needy sectors(and especially the most vulnerable andpoor groups).

While Brazilian KBOs still largely focuson understanding the national systemand comparing it with others, especiallyother emerging powers, it is fundamentalthat they also take on board a broadermission of engaging in South-South Cooperation in practice and in the field.

Both sides are needed. By supportingand highlighting innovative localdevelopment practices, throughevidence-based research, KBOs representan important development in bridgingthe policy-to-research interface, particularlyin narrowing the gap between developed,emerging, developing and less

developed countries.

The approach used by BrazilianKBOs to date is an important toolwhich potentially empowers them vis-à-vistheir respective governments and theglobal architecture of internationaldevelopment cooperation, particularlyin providing critical analysis onprocesses, outputs and impacts, andin so doing helps to create and promotea stronger approach to horizontalcooperation and exchange amongcountries of the South.

ABC (2009). Technical cooperation

between Brazil and South America Countries;Technical cooperation between Brazil and

Countries in North and Central Americaand in the Caribbean; Brazilian Technical

Cooperation in Africa. Brasília, ABC.

Cabral, L. and Weinstock, J. (2010).‘Brazilian technical cooperation for

development. Drivers, mechanics andfuture prospects’. Research reports and

studies. London, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, <http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5002&title=brazilian-technical-cooperation-development>


Datta, A. and Young, J. (2011). Producing

Home Grown Solutions: think tanks andknowledge networks in international

development. Washington, DC, World Bank.

Girvan, N. (2007). Power Imbalances andDevelopment Knowledge. Ottawa,

The North-South Institute, 6.

Instituto de Pesquisa EconômicaAplicada (IPEA) and Agência Brasileira

de Cooperação (ABC) (2010). Cooperaçãobrasileira para o desenvolvimento

internacional: 2005–2009. Brasília, IPEA/ABC, <http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/livro_cooperacao_brasileira.pdf> (accessed 25 May 2012).

Lancaster, C. (2007). Foreign aid. Diplomacy,development, domestic politics. Chicago and

London, The University of Chicago Press.

Leite, I. (2012). ‘Cooperação Sul-Sul:conceito, história e marcos interpretativos’,

Observador On-Line, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2012,<http://www.opsa.com.br/images/pdf/observador/observador_v_7_n_03_2012.pdf>(accessed 25 May 2012).

McGann, J. (2012). The global go to think

tanks report 2011. Philadelphia, PA,University of Pennsylvania, <http://www.gotothinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2011_Global_Go_To_Think_Tanks_Report_-_January_20_Edition_WITH_LETTEr-1.pdf> (accessed 25 May 2012).

Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE)

(2007). South-South Cooperation activitiescarried out by Brazil. Brasília, Secretariat

General for Cooperation and TradePromotion, MRE.

Sá e Silva, M. M. (2009). ‘South-South

Cooperation: past and presentconceptualizations and practice’, in L.

Chisholm and G. Steiner-Khamsi (eds),South- South Cooperation in Education

and Development. New York, NY, TeachersCollege Press, 3: 39.

Santos, B. S. and Meneses, M. P. (eds) (2010).

Epistemologias do Sul. São Paulo, Cortez.

Secretariat for Social Communication,Presidency of the Federative Republic

of Brazil (2011). Fact Sheet: BrazilianTechnical Cooperation. Agriculture,

Food Security and Social Policies.24 June 2011, Rome. <http://www.brasil.gov.br/para/press/press-releases/june-1/brazil-to-highlight-south-south-cooperation-initiatives-at-fao-side-event/files/fact-sheet-brazilian-technical-cooperation-final.pdf> (accessed 25 May 2012).

UNDP SU/SSC, Special Unit for South-SouthCooperation (n.d.). What is South-South

Cooperation? <http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/about/what_is_ssc.html>(accessed 10 April 2012).

Vaz, A. C. and Inoue, C. Y. A. (2007).Emerging Donors in International

Development Assistance: The Brazil case.Ottawa, International Development

Research Centre (IDRC/CRDI),<http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-140964-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> (accessed 25 May 2012).

Poverty in Focus 41

As Brazilian cooperation extendsits reach across the African continent,the time is right to reflect on theemerging challenges and suggestaction needed for an effective andinteractive process of exchangeand engagement around common andshared development challenges.

Africa occupies an increasingly importantposition on Brazil’s foreign policy andeconomic agenda. During President Lulada Silva’s administration (2003-2010) thenumber of embassies in Africa doubled(MRE, 2011), and bilateral commerce withthe continent increased at a higher ratethan overall trade (CINDES, 2011). Brazil’scooperation for development reflects thisfocus on Africa: in 2010 budget executionfor technical cooperation projects in thisregion accounted for 57 per cent ofthe overall portfolio (Cabral, 2011).

Agriculture is the largest sector oftechnical cooperation in Africa—between2001 and 2010 it accounted for 26 percent of resources spent (ABC, 2011).Cooperation in this sector covers avariety of issues, including research,extension, training and, increasingly,adaptation of what are claimed to be‘successful’ Brazilian agricultural publicpolicies. If until recently technicalcooperation by Embrapa, a giantagricultural research corporation,dominated the portfolio, the range ofactors with active participation in South-South Cooperation is now more diverse.

The Ministry of Agrarian Development(MDA), with its focus on public policiesto support family farming, is a majornew presence, adding variety to theagricultural cooperation approach andcontent (Patriota and Pierri, 2012).

Civil society organisations are still largelyabsent from the cooperation framework,

which is dominated by government-to-government relations, but there are signsof change (Cabral, 2011).

Brazil claims to offer a new paradigmfor development, founded on principlesof solidarity, non-interference anddemand-driven cooperation (ABC, 2011).

The narrative is compelling, but timewill tell whether a new paradigm istruly on offer. In the meantime, somechallenges Brazil faces in Africa are worthhighlighting, in the hope that raisingawareness about them will assist inmaking South-South Cooperation amore effective process. To be effective,such a process should not only tackleissues of productivity, growth andmarkets, but also the persistent andthorny challenges of poverty, inequality,vulnerability and exclusion (see Marin,2012 in this series). Brazil is well positionedto do so, not only for Africa’s benefit butalso to its own advantage, in what couldbe a truly horizontal partnership forsustainable development.

The politics of social inclusion

The Brazilian narrative on South-SouthCooperation builds upon a framework ofsocial inclusion and the integrationof civil society, state and private-sectorinitiatives to achieve both enhancedproductivity and social equity (see articlesby Goulet and Sabourin, 2012; Campolina,2012 and Borges, 2012 in this series).However, the mobilisation of civil societyis not as clearly articulated within theframework for operationalising South-South Cooperation and potentiallyposes significant challenges tocooperation between Brazil and Africa.

In the African context, the complexrealities of the political economy ofdevelopment suggest a critical role forprominent participation by civil society.

Agriculture is the largest

sector of technical

cooperation in Africa—

between 2001 and 2010

it accounted for 26 per cent

of resources spent.

In the African context,

the complex realities

of the political economy of

development suggest a

critical role for prominent

participation by civil society.

Towards an Even-handed and Effective

Africa-Brazil Exchange for Agricultural

Development: African Perspectivesby Kojo Amanor, Sérgio Chichava, Blessings Chinsinga and Langton Mukwereza1

1. Kojo Amanor is Associate Professor at the Instituteof African Studies, University of Ghana; Sérgio Chichavais Researcher at the Instituto de Estudos Sociais eEconómicos, Mozambique; Blessings Chinsinga isAssociate Professor at Chancellor College, Universityof Malawi; Langton Mukwereza is AgriculturalConsultant at Research for Development Trust,Zimbabwe. They are all members of the FutureAgricultures Consortium.


of Brazilian technical cooperation willalso depend upon building the capacitiesof social development experts to engagewith the local institutional and politicalcontexts of development. Importantlessons also emerge from Argentina’sexperience and Sino-African collaboration.

In moving beyond largely technologicaland technical transfers, Brazil has a wealthof experience in the area of socialdevelopment and social participationit can build on.

Since civil society has played animportant role in the framework ofsocial inclusion within Brazil and inadvocating for the rights of marginalisedpopulations, a significant opportunityexists to harness this capacity throughmore direct involvement in theplanning and implementationof development cooperation.Moreover, building a dialogue betweenAfrican and Brazilian civil societieswould critically enrich strategies andframeworks for socially inclusive policies,which can deliver across multipledimensions of development, as theyhave already done in Brazil. In so doing,we can also gain a better understandingof such innovations, their adaptabilityand replicability in different social andpolitical contexts and, therefore, theirmultiple and diverse applications.

Engaging the entire

range of private-sector actors

The influence of agribusiness is pervasivein all farming activities regardless of farm

size or enterprise choice. Technology andbest practices are continuously beingrevamped worldwide, making itimportant for large commercial farmersin Africa to establish collaborative linkswith peers and agribusinesses in othercountries—even more so in the contextof South-South Cooperation. Moreover,given the growing number of small-scaleagribusiness enterprises, it is importantalso to open up dialogue in ways thatstrengthen the positive externalitiesof agribusiness more broadly.

Agribusiness and large-scale commercialfarmers are in a largely cordial win-winrelationship, as they access the same setof information and bargain on an evenfooting. In most of Africa, however, therelationship between small farmers andagribusiness is largely one of mutualresentment. Small farmers chideagribusinesses for unethical businesspractices; agribusinesses, on theother hand, provide piecemeal andinconsistent support to small farms,considering such entities unviablebusinesses. Yet, development cannot besustainable if it excludes small farmers,which constitute the sheer majorityof rural productive systems in Africa (seealso Owiyo, 2012 in this series).

Brazil is in a particularly unique positionas a collaborative partner for both largeand small farmers in Africa, consideringits affinity to the continent and the well-documented pathways to developmentfor both farming systems, which haveadvanced with support from governmentpolicies. However, the story of Brazil’sagribusiness and ‘family farming’development has also been one ofcontestation and some clear conflicts,and this should be taken into accountin the definition and transfer into Africanterritory of models from Brazil’s rich butintricate agricultural developmentexperiences. In particular, key lessons onthe ‘how’ will be critical to Africa’s needsas much as the ‘what’.

The critical role of research

in building African ownership

Brazilian experiences, expertise andtechnology are considered particularlyrelevant and relatively simpler to adaptto the African context than other models,due to a wide range of similarities

Development cannot besustainable if it excludessmall farmers, whichconstitute the sheermajority of rural productivesystems in Africa.

The story of Brazil’sagribusiness and ‘familyfarming’ development hasalso been one ofcontestation and some clearconflicts, and this should betaken into account in thedefinition and transfer intoAfrican territory of modelsfrom Brazil’s rich butintricate agriculturaldevelopment experiences.

A Summary of the Key Entry Points

Brazil

Social contestation leadingto advances in pro-poorpublic policies

Breath of experiences for bothlarge scale agribusinessesand family farming sectors

Knowledge gaps on the breadthof success and the extent ofparadigm shift in development

cooperation

Africa

Can Brazilian state-societydynamics be replicated or bebrought to bear?

How to engage the full rangeof private sector actors foreffective pro-poor andsustainable development?

How could research be used tostrengthen African ownershipin SSC and make the most ofwhat Brazil has to offer?

Issue

State-society dynamicsfor inclusivedevelopment

Private sectorengagement

Bridging the policy-research gap

Civil society in Africa plays a powerfulrole in organising development, but thisis not always directed to the cause ofgreater social and productive inclusion,particularly for poor people in rural areas.

Civil society initiatives are oftenshaped by intricate, and hardlyexplicit, political and business interests,and it is increasingly important fordevelopment initiatives to criticallyexamine such interests. Thus, the success

Poverty in Focus 43

between the two regions. Nevertheless,properly focused research would greatlyhelp harness the prospects of Brazil-Africa cooperation in agriculture to betterachieve its objectives, as well as broaderdevelopment outcomes. Such researchwould enable both Brazil and Africa toask difficult questions about variousaspects of their cooperation. This wouldmake Brazil-Africa cooperation differentfrom the conventional cooperationarrangements that have failed to delivera strategic impact on African agriculturefor more than half a century.

This research would primarily focus on:

(i) political economy analysesof Brazilian and Africanagricultural policies;

(ii) comparative analyses betweenBrazil’s bilateral and trilateralcooperation arrangements;

(iii) comparative perspective on Brazilversus other forms of developmentcooperation, old and new;

(iv) the role of the state and bureaucracyin agricultural development;

(v) documentation of Brazil-Africacooperation arrangements;

(vi) mechanisms for effective deliveryof Brazilian cooperation; and

(vii) perceptions about Brazil-Africacooperation from the perspectiveof Africans.

Filling these important gaps inknowledge would, inter alia, help theBrazilian success story to be fully toldso as to bring about a necessary measureof realism among African countries, whichtend to see Brazilian cooperation as aquick fix to long-standing problemsin the agricultural sector.

In addition, Africa would be betterequipped to define a clear visionof what it wants to achieve out ofthe cooperation with Brazil in the fieldof agriculture. This would strengthenAfrica’s engagement with Braziland render greater credibility to thehorizontality of South-South Cooperation.

A local-level approach to research

The increasing presence Brazil and otherso-called ‘rising powers’ in Africa hasraised new and important conceptualchallenges relative to prevailingdevelopment theories (see also Gubo Qi,2012 in this series). Understandingif these countries are bringing to Africaa new form or philosophy of cooperationdistinct from the practices of ‘traditionaldonors’ has become a hot developmenttopic. Several new research projectshave cropped up to address this issue.

Yet, most of these err by focusing tooheavily on macro dimensions. Micro-levelstudies on local dynamics are still few, yetthey can make an important contributionfor a better understanding of the ‘new’forms, models or modalities ofcooperation in Africa.

Case study methodology, in particular,allows for multiple perspectivesto be captured, while taking intoconsideration the specificities of arather heterogeneous continent interms of its countries’ cultural, historical,economic and political contexts.

ABC (2011). Brazilian technical cooperation.Brasília, Brazilian Cooperation Agency,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Cabral, L. (2011). ‘Cooperação Brasil-Áfricapara o desenvolvimento: caracterização,

tendências e desafios’, Textos Cindes No. 26.Rio de Janeiro, Centro de Estudos de

Integração e Desenvolvimento,<http://www.cindesbrasil.org/site2010/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=14&view=viewcategory&catid=7> (accessed 24 May 2012).

CINDES (2011). ‘A África na agenda

econômica do Brasil: comércio,investimentos e cooperação’, Breves Cindes

Nº 61. Rio de Janeiro, Centro de Estudosde Integração e Desenvolvimento, <http://www.cindesbrasil.org/site2010/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=14&view=viewcategory&catid=4> (accessed 24 May 2012).

MRE (2011). ‘A África na agenda econômicado Brasil: comércio e investimentos’,

presentation by Nedilson Jorge, Director ofAfrica Department at the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs, CINDES and CEBRI-hosted seminaron ‘Africa and Brazil’s Economic Agenda’, 22

November 2011, Rio de Janeiro.

Patriota, T. C. and Pierri, F. M.(2012 forthcoming). ‘Brazil’s Cooperation for

Agriculture Development and Food Securityin Africa: Assessing the Technology, Finance

and Knowledge Platforms’, AgriculturalDevelopment and Food Security in Africa.

London, Zed Books.

Micro-level studies onlocal dynamics are still few,yet they can make animportant contributionfor a better understandingof the ‘new’ forms, modelsor modalities of cooperationin Africa.

In moving beyond largelytechnological and technicaltransfers, Brazil has a wealthof experience in the area ofsocial development andsocial participationit can build on.

Pove

rty

in F

ocus

No.

24

- Ju

ne

2012

.

International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC - IG)

Poverty Practice, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDPEsplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco O, 7º andar70052-900 Brasilia, DF - BrazilTelephone: +55 61 2105 5000

E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.ipc-undp.org

Pove

rty

in F

ocus

No.

24

- Ju

ne

2012

.

poverty international policy centre for inclusive growth number 24 · 2019-11-11 · 2...

Documents