An Insight Paper by: 

   

Insight Paper 

Ellen Mangnus and Nicole Metz  

March, 2019 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colofon 

Authors: 

Ellen Mangnus is postdoctoral researcher at the             Department of Human Geography & Spatial           Planning, Utrecht University. This Insight Paper is             based in part on research conducted within the               framework of the Follow the Food research             project, supported through the Global Challenge           Programme. Nicole Metz is senior knowledge           broker at the Knowledge Programme – Food             Security on behalf of AgriProFocus. 

The members of the policy working group of               AgriProFocus: ICCO, Oxfam Novib, Hivos, SNV           and Wageningen CDI have provided valuable           advice and input for this publication.  

©AgriProFocus 2019 

 

Few of the challenges humanity faces are as urgent and complex as food security. To meet the needs of                                     a rapidly growing world population, an unparalleled, worldwide effort is required. Members of the                           AgriProFocus Network are dedicated to meeting this challenge in collaboration. By working together,                         learning from each other and unitedly pushing for change. AgriProFocus brings together farmers,                         agribusinesses, civil society, knowledge institutes and governments. United in diversity, our members                       show that agribusiness and development are not mutually exclusive. Together, we find new,                         sustainable ways of creating impact with business. Exchanging perspectives and expecting the                       unexpected. Cultivating collaboration through linking, learning and leadership. 

2

CONTENT 

1. Introduction 4 

2. Background 7 

2.1 Dutch Food security policy 7 

2.2. AgriProFocus members reflections on policy inclusiveness 8 

2.3 Different perspectives on the role of farmers in development 9

3. Targeting farmers: frequently used definitions and criteria 11 

3. 1 Current definitions 11 

3.2 Reflections on the use of categories 14 

3.3 Conclusions on definitions used 14 

4. Targeting strategies in food security interventions 16 

4.1 Targeting strategies 16 

4.2 Experience in targeted interventions 16 

4.3 Dutch FNS policy and target groups in practice 18 

5. Conclusions 20 

References 22

3

Introduction This insight paper aims to contribute to a better conceptualization of ‘farmers’ and to an improved                               understanding of ‘farmers’ who are currently targeted in food security interventions. The objective is to                             inform Dutch Food & Nutrition Security (FNS) Policy as well as to provide recommendations on how to                                 enhance the policy’s results for and with the target groups it intends to reach.  

Our motivation to develop this paper is based on the following observations: 

➔ Dutch FNS policy as it is formulated since 2014 is not always explicit in defining the target                                 group of its interventions.  

➔ Organisations in the Dutch network use a range of different words and definitions: ‘poor                           farmers’, ‘poorest farmers’, ‘farmers with potential’, ‘business-oriented farmers’, ‘commercial                 farmers’, ‘marginalized farmers’, ‘smallholder farmers’, ‘family farms’, ‘entrepreneurial               farmers’, ‘agri-entrepreneurs’ while also often referring to ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’ farms. 

➔ The number of farms that can be classified in each of these categories, the average or median                                 size of farms in each of these categories, and the relative amount of food produced by each of                                   these categories: these basic data are often not available to development actors, for several                           reasons clearly described in a key FAO publication on this matter (Lowder et al., FAO, 2016).                               This same publication makes an effort to synthesize the most recent data from World Census                             of Agriculture (WCA) in order to present an accurate estimate of the number, size and                             distribution of smallholder farms and family farms worldwide.  

➔ Food security interventions, both public as well as private, are often designed to reach                           several farmer groups, not always with a clear Theory of Change (ToC) or a differentiation in                               approach of these groups. 

➔ Meanwhile, many development actors have a particular interest in youth and gender. 

 In practice this may mean that several implicit choices are made which imply that certain groups benefit                                 more than others without a deliberate policy that underlies this choice. The authors believe that the                               effectiveness of FNS policy and practice could be enhanced when objectives, expected results and                           interventions are (better) differentiated according to target group.   

The authors assume that: 

➔ To effectively achieve impact, objectives, outputs and outcomes should be specified per                       target group. 

➔ A specified design per target group enhances the quality of the Theory of Change used.  ➔ If target groups are clear, the monitoring and evaluation of interventions would be more                           

accurate; and financial investments would be clearly allocated.  

 This idea closely follows the recommendation of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department                       (IOB), which conducted an evaluation of Dutch FNS policy, to apply differentiated targeting of farmers.  

 

 

 

 

4

The questions guiding this study are:  

1. Which ‘farmers’ are expected to benefit from Dutch Food & Nutrition Security (FNS) policy,                           according to the FNS ‘diamond’ actors?  

2. And what evidence is available about effective strategies to reach different categories of                         ‘farmers’ with different/tailor-made approaches?  

By better understanding who and where the particular farmers are who need additional support,                           alternative intervention strategies can be designed. 

The objectives of this insight paper are:  

1. An inventory of and clarifying the concepts used for categories of ‘farmers’ by AgriProFocus                           network members and the broader Dutch FNS community. Including: 

a. The importance of clarifying these concepts to enhance development impact.  b. Background information on the political use and interpretations of the different                     

concepts. 2. An overview of the evidence of strategies that have been applied to differentiate between                           

farmer target groups. Answering the following questions: a. Which interventions/practices have been applied in particular for what farmer target                     

group?  b. What does this mean for inclusion/ exclusion of specific groups?  

 

Methodology 

Both the elaboration of an overview of the different criteria used to conceptualize farmers and an                               assessment of how food security interventions target various categories of farmers has proven a                           formidable task, partly because of the wide diversity of existing definitions and targeting strategies.                           Partly because of lacking resources, only few organizations share their conceptualization of ‘farmers’                         online, and few of the project evaluations or assessments of interventions are online available. Due to                               time constraints of this short assignment it was impossible to request AgriProFocus members for                           project evaluations and systematically review the experiences in targeting food security interventions.                       Therefore it was decided to draft lessons from existing review studies.  

Through online search on the following key terms: ‘definition farmers’, ‘definition of smallholders’,                         ‘conceptualisation of small scale farming,’ ‘identifying smallholders’, the following review studies, policy                       documents and fact sheets were selected for establishing an overview of how ‘farmers’ are defined and                               identified in interventions: 

● Aid Environment and EPFL, 2013. Defining Smallholders Suggestions for a Round table                       Sustainable Biomaterials- smallholder definitions. 

● Fan,S., Brzeska, J., Keyzer, M. and Halsema, A. From subsistence to profit: transforming                         smallholder farms. 2013. IFPRI 

● FAO, 2012: Smallholders and Family farmers.  ● OECD, 2015: Strategies for addressing smallholder agriculture and facilitating structural                   

transformation. Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets      

5

The following studies have been used to acquire a general insight in targeting strategies in food security                                 interventions:  

● FAO, 2001: Targeting for Nutrition Improvement Resources for advancing nutritional                   well-being. 

● Van Wijk, M. T., Tittonell, P., Rufino, M. C., Herrero, M., Pacini, C., De Ridder, N., & Giller, K. E.                                       (2009). Identifying key entry-points for strategic management of smallholder farming systems                     in sub-Saharan Africa using the dynamic farm-scale simulation model                 NUANCES-FARMSIM. Agricultural Systems, 102(1-3), 89-101 

● Pereira de Miranda, R., Diop, A., Klug, I. 2017. Fostering food purchase programmes in                           widespread poverty contexts: targeting smallholders within the PAA Africa Programme in                     Niger.  

● Quisumbing, A. R., & Pandolfelli, L. (2010). Promising approaches to address the needs of poor                             female farmers: Resources, constraints, and interventions. World Development, 38(4), 581-592. 

 For an overview of targeting and inclusion or exclusion of farmers in Dutch Food security interventions                               the following review studies have been consulted:  

● IOB, 2012: Op zoek naar focus en effectiviteit. Beleidsdoorlichting van de Nederlandse inzet                         voor private sector ontwikkeling 2005-2012 

● IOB, 2017: Food for thought Review of Dutch food security policy 2012-2015 ● Royal Tropical Institute, 2016: Mid-Term Review of the Facility for Sustainable                     

Entrepreneurship and Food Security (FDOV).  

Structure of the report 

T his report proceeds as follows. The next chapter (chapter 2) introduces the Dutch Food Security Policy                               and elaborates upon the importance of clarifying target groups. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the                               different ways development interventions conceptualize and categorize smallholders. Chapter 4                   contains a review of a number of targeting strategies applied in food security interventions by                             international organisations as well as the Netherlands. Chapter 5 presents conclusions and                       recommendations. 

   

6

2. Background 

2.1 Dutch Food security policy 

 Since 2014 Dutch policy for global food security has been oriented towards three main targets:  

1. Eradicating hunger and malnutrition The focus is on vulnerable people who experience hunger firsthand through being affected by poverty, natural disasters, conflicts and other crises. Besides the provision of food aid where needed, permanent access to adequate and proper nutrition is necessary. 

2. Promoting inclusive and sustainable growth in the agricultural sector The focus is on small and medium-scale farmers as well as other rural entrepreneurs who could potentially serve market demand. Increasing these people’s earning power is a powerful tool in fighting hunger and poverty and promoting economic growth.  

3. Achieving ecologically sustainable food systems The focus here is on the sustainable management of international public (environmental) goods like water, soil, energy and biodiversity. The effects of climate change on food systems and vice-versa will be considered during all activities. 

 With regard to targeting, the 2014 policy letter includes several references. The second main target                             above explicitly formulates a focus on ‘small and medium-scale farmers’ as well as ‘other rural                             entrepreneurs’. The letter also refers to the Dutch contribution to the UN ambition to ‘double                             productivity and income of small farmers’, to the role of youth and women, to the importance of farmer                                   organisations, as well as to farmers’ market access.  In 2015, the Dutch government signed the UN SDG 2030 agenda including SDG2, which is the leading                                 framework for the Netherlands’ international agenda. With regard to farmers, SDG2 targets include the                           following: ‘By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in                           particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers’ while also referring to                         the importance of ‘value addition’ and ‘non-farm employment.’   In the period 2014-2018, the Dutch government has used a range of instruments to implement its                               policy, both through its central Ministries and its embassies. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry                               of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality collaborate closely with RVO, in a/o the major PSD programmes                               such as FDOV. 

In 2018, a new policy for Foreign Trade and International Collaboration has been agreed ‘Investing in                               Global Prospects’. With regard to food and nutrition security it only provides some general policy                             directions, while a more specific food and nutrition security policy letter in expected in 2019. Still, this                                 general policy framework gives some information about particular groups. First, women and youth are                           priority groups in the policy. Further, it refers to the more than 500 million commercial and family farms                                   worldwide ‘who have to contend with very low productivity and revenues, owing to a lack of means of                                   production, knowledge and market access, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa’. The policy also describes                         a geographic shift to new focus regions.  

7

Several reviews of elements of the policy have taken place during 2014-2018, some of which will be                                 referred to section 4.3. The IOB evaluation of Dutch food security policy during 2012-2016 is the most                                 comprehensive review. This evaluation included a key recommendation regarding farmer targeting:  

“Using a differentiated targeting of farmers, anticipating agricultural transformation and rural transition. Some farmers may be helped by enabling them to transition to commercial farming 

(stepping up). For others it would be better to leave agriculture and to find off-farm employment (stepping out). In addition, policies should also acknowledge that for many others, subsistence farming 

remains their only livelihood option for the time being (hanging in). For the commercially oriented farmers, it is important for the focus to be on helping them to be assured of income, but for 

subsistence farmers, a stronger focus on nutrition will be important. By emphasising commercial agricultural development, the Netherlands tends to address mainly the stepping-up farmers, yet an 

inclusive policy for developing in a broader sense also needs a strategy to address the farmers who are stepping out or hanging in.” 

The IOB review was discussed in a particular public dialogue session with a range of Dutch                               organisations, companies, universities and representatives from Embassies and Ministries, facilitated by                     IOB and Food & Business Knowledge Platform. The recommendation about targeting was discussed in a                             particular workshop ‘Making agricultural transformation more inclusive.’ Participants in this session                     shared a range of perspectives on whether or not inclusiveness could be enhanced if the                             recommendation by IOB was followed up. It was clear that there is not one simple solution: ‘when                                 attempting to make agricultural transformation inclusive, much depends on whether, when, where and                         for whom it can be realized’.  

1

2.2. AgriProFocus members reflections on policy inclusiveness 

The members of the policy working group of AgriProFocus recognise the IOB’s observations                         that in current practice of the Dutch food and nutrition security policy, targeting strategies of                             interventions are not clear enough and interventions implicitly oriented towards those                     engaged in commercial agricultural development. In order to ‘leave no one behind’, the farmers                           who have less access to assets and located in a less favourable production environment, may                             need to be given more explicit attention. Despite the fact that categorization is often                           complicated, interventions should make an effort to figure out their primary, and possibly their                           secondary, beneficiaries more clearly with a particular intention to invest more in the quadrant                           of farmers who have less access to assets and are located in a less favourable production                               environment, as shown in the figure below.  

   

1 See Food & Business Knowledge Platform & IOB (2018).

8

A picture that illustrates the position of farmers according to two axes, their access to assets, and their location in either a favourable or an unfavourable production environment. 

 

2.3 Different perspectives on the role of farmers in development 

The above policy processes and their implementation take place in a context in which there is fierce                                 debate about the role different categories of farmers have in development and in achieving global food                               security, both in the Netherlands and in the international FNS community.  On one end of the spectrum there are those who regard the smallholder farmer as a phenomenon that                                   will fade in the course of development. According to this stance of thought economic development                             requires modernization in terms of practices and technology and implies farming on an increasingly                           large scale. Smallholder farming in this development perspective is oftentimes characterised ‘unviable’.                       The future is for ‘entrepreneurial’ farmers, for some synonymous to large-scale farming. This narrative                           stresses the importance of interventions supporting farmers to modernize, which means to use                         science-based techniques and inputs, in developing country context oftentimes synonym to mechanised                       farming, improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticide use. A central role is assigned to the market and the                                 belief that farmers need to be part of global value chains (Mosely et al. 2015).   On the other side of the spectrum there are those who regard specifically small scale farming as                                 essential for inclusive economic development, global food production and food diversity. One global                         player for example is FAO (FAO, 2012) that cherishes smallholder farming for its contribution to food                               diversity and its high productivity. A movement like La Via Campesina emphasises the role of                             smallholders in maintaining climate resilient crops and traditional breeds. Also in Europe voices go up,                             expressing doubts regarding the trend towards large scale farming and the consequential decreasing                         biodiversity species.   

9

Critical scholars, civil society organisations and others challenge this seeming duality. They plea for                           contextualised development pathways and combining different types of knowledge and techniques. In                       this context, Lowder (2016) stresses the need to use accurate data about which category of farmers,                               with which median land size, produces which volume or percentage of food. Belton (personal                           communication), in his research to agricultural development in Thailand, found that farmers had                         enhanced their well-being, income and livelihood, while their landholdings remained extremely small                       and while none of the farmers considered expanding or selling their land. As a development strategy                               they had sought for other sources of income and not rarely did they move temporarily to urban areas,                                   managing their farm from distance.    

 

     

10

3. Targeting farmers: frequently used definitions and             criteria This chapter explores on basis of which definitions and criteria the targeting of farmers takes place in                                 current practice of AgriProFocus network members, the broader Dutch food and nutrition security                         community, and other international agencies and networks. 

3. 1 Current definitions 

A web-search on websites of AgriProFocus network members and the broader Dutch FNS community                           revealed that few organisations have published a clear definition online on what they perceive by                             ‘farmers’. Therefore use was made of general overview studies and definitions of international                         development institutions such as Worldbank, IFPRI and FAO.  

Following is an overview of the criteria that are often used to categorize farmers. Thereafter the section                                 will illustrate how each of these indicators are used by different organisations.  

Indicator  Explanation and comments 

Farm size  

Farm size is frequently used as an indicator to demarcate smallholder farming from medium and large scale farming. Some organisations use concrete hectare indications, others orient the classification of smallholders on national average land size, or on fiscal properties that are fixed by law by a respective country.  

Market integration ● The extent to which a farm consumes its produce or sells it 

at the market. ● Tonnes of produce sold per year  

Labour Input 

● Labor input may refer to the origin, type, hours spent and quantity of labor input on the farm.  

● Family labor as the main source of input at the farm is also used to differentiate between farmers. (it is key in concept ‘family farms’) 

Income Different income criteria are used: 

● The percentage household income gained by farming  ● Living income is used to identify the poorest farmers 

Capabilities of Farmers   

Whether a farmer possesses skills such as literacy, farm management, administration, marketing, leadership.  

Farming system  

● Types of crops or animals on the farm ● The way a farmer manages the farm 

Level of Organisation  

Group membership (farmer association, cooperative) 

Cultural and Social indicators  ● Gender and youth ● Head of the household, owner of the land, etc. 

Context specific definitions  e.g. related to particular crops, regions or climatic conditions  

 

The use of these indicators varies across countries, contexts and type of organisations or investors -                               which is the background of developing this paper. Oftentimes various indicators are used to describe a                               certain group of farmers. A broad concept, such as ‘family farms’, recognizes the linkages between the                               family farm’s agricultural functions and its economic, environmental, social and cultural functions. These                         interlinkages are set out clearly by Garner (FAO, 2014). 

 

11

Farm Size Several organisations use farm size to categorize farmers. The World Bank and the African                           Development Bank generally define smallholders as farmers with maximum 2 ha of land. African                           Development Bank is increasingly adapting its definition to specific agro-ecological zones that                       eventually affect farming activities and the composition of farming portfolios. It also takes into account                             population density. In areas with a high population density, smallholders usually cultivate less than one                             ha, which may increase up to 10 ha in more sparsely populated semi-arid areas (Aid Environment and                                 EPFL, 2013).   Certification schemes mostly work with either global definitions or with definitions that are adapted to                             national and regional contexts. The global RSPO standard for example sets the limit at 50 ha. The                                 Indonesian RSPO standard defines producers with up to 25 ha as smallholders and in Papua New Guinea                                 up to 20 ha. For Malaysia and Ghana, farmers are smallholders up to 40 ha. REDcert and the Fairtrade                                     Labelling Organization (FLO) maintain relative indicators of smallholder landholdings. REDcert for                     example states that small farms are operations whose productive land is more than 75% below the                               national average area farmed.   Landsize is only relevant as indicator when placed within a specific context. The Kenyan government                             regards small tea producers as working less than 20 hectares of land. In other contexts, such as                                 Indonesia, 15 hectares of land may be considered a relatively large farm. Argentina and Uruguay define                               extensive livestock smallholders up to 500 Ha (Aid Environment and EPFL, 2013).   Market Integration Several organisations categorize farmers according to their market orientation. The broadest distinction                       is between farmers primary producing to feed their own family and farmers producing regularly for the                               market. The latter is sometimes further differentiated in farmers’ linkages to local, national and/or                           international markets. The Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) uses ‘limitation to the local market’                         as a characteristic of the smallholder. African Development Bank distinguishes between subsistence,                       semi-commercial and commercial activities. Smallholders according to the bank are mainly oriented                       towards subsistence production. Overall definitions using market integration as key-indicator refer to a                         smallholder as a farmer who is only partially integrated in the market. In South Africa a farmer is                                   commercial when he is registered as an enterprise, all the others are smallholders. An academic source                               that provides a framework to distinguish various levels of market integration is Trienekens (2011).   Labor input IFAD (2007) and the FAO (2011) characterize a smallholder farm as one that uses predominantly family                               labour. FAO in some of its reports even maintains a stricter definition by requiring the family members                                 to also live on the farm. IFPRI for instance regards smallholder farming as “farms in which most labor                                   comes from the farm family, which puts much of its working time into the farm”.  The governments of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay define family farming as “predominantly utiliz(ing)                         labor of their own family within the economic activities of their establishment or enterprise, at                             maximum two permanent external staff members are used. In Paraguay family labor can be                           complemented by a maximum of 20 workers on a temporary employment basis (Aid Environment and                             EPFL, 2013).  Certification bodies maintain similar definitions. RSPO, IFOAM, FLO also expects smallholders to rely                         for the largest share of farm labor on family, while seasonal staff may be employed. Smallholders are                                 expected to spend most of their occupational time doing agricultural work on their farm. Most                             organizations regard smallholder farming as a business in which family, consumption and production are                           closely intertwined. Many countries also pay attention to the distance between the farm and the actual                               residence of the family. The family’s place of residence is required to be on or at least nearby the farm.  

12

 In an era where farming has become increasingly unattractive to younger generations, there are                           multiple examples of smallholders, even when owning a few hectares, who prefer to outsource the work                               on their farm to temporary laborers while having another job themselves (e.g. taxi driver). Those who                               work in towns and cities and send their investments back to the rural areas or their farmers are often                                     referred to as ‘telephone farmers’.  Income Less frequently but still used as an indicator is income. Most organizations conceptualizing smallholder                           farming mention that the majority of the income should come from the farm. Nevertheless defining the                               threshold for income of course is very difficult. According to FAO the smallholder’s productive activities                             (either agricultural, forestry, or fishery) should generate the major part of income for the farmers. These                               activities can be complemented with off-farm activities. IFAD uses a concrete income indicator,                         referring to an average annual income of below USD 5,000. Many Latin American countries use                             percentages as a criterion to define family farms. In Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile, at least                               50% of the household income should be derived from on-farm activities, in Brazil this should even be at                                   least 70%.   Recently also living income (or living wage) is used as a criteria to identify smallholders in need: “Living                                   income is the net income a household would need to earn to enable all members of the household to                                     afford a decent standard of living” .  

2

 Capabilities of Farmers Capability is rarely used as an explicit criterion, however some certification schemes do apply it.                             Capabilities that determine the feasibility of complying with a standard include literacy, farm                         management, administration and marketing (IFOAM). The FAO distinguish emerging farmers from                     traditional farmers, based on their use and capability to handle technology. “Emerging smallholders are                           generally defined as disposing of a higher level of technical knowledge and better receptivity to                             improved technology, relative to traditional smallholders.”   Farming system Some organisations look at the farming system to categorize farmers. FAO and the African                           Development Bank refer to the low level of technology to describe smallholders. Other definitions refer                             to the smallholder farming system as diverse, low input, low level of technology, low productivity (Action                               Aid, La Via Campesina, IFPRI). Other variables used to characterize a farming system are; possession of a                                 tractor, irrigation, greenhouse, post-harvest storage.   Level of Organisation Some organizations, especially certification schemes, use ‘group membership’ as a criteria to select                         farmers for their intervention (UTZ). The IFOAM set conditions for smallholder farmer groups. A group                             should have homogeneity in terms of crops, land size and geographically the farmers should be close. An                                 organization like Agriterra deliberately opts to provide advice to organised farmers for maximum                         impact.  Cultural and social indicators Besides the variables listed above, gender and age are among the key dimensions often used to explicitly                                 differentiate within the broader farmer group. In addition, there are a number of not outspoken                             variables consciously or unconsciously used in defining farmers. In many countries the term smallholder                           is associated with ‘poverty’ for example. According to the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian                             change a smallholder farmer in the public debate in South Africa is synonymous with a black farmer.  

2 Sustainable Food Lab.

13

  Context specific definitions An alternative to a global definition is a specific definition for particular crops, regions or climatic                               conditions. Some organisations (SAN) leave it to auditors to decide which indicators to use, as long as                                 certain criteria are evaluated at all times. In other interventions communities themselves set the criteria                             to identify different wealth categories (PADdev) (see also chapter 4).   Multiple indicators Some organisations use several indicators to categorize farmers ( for example IFOAM ). IFPRI (2008)                             looked at various indicators in an attempt to define smallholders in Ghana. Indicators included market                             orientation, input use and production output.  

3.2 Reflections on the use of categories 

The clarification of definitions and the more explicit use of these to label groups of farmers has several                                   advantages, as described in the introduction, but it may also bring risks. Critical scholars warn for the                                 categorization of farmers by land size, even when based on national or regional averages. According to                               them this could lead to distortions in understanding of agriculture and agricultural development.                         Berdegué and Fuentealba (2011) show that regional and climatological factors imply that 2 ha size of                               land leads to different results in one or the other region. Giller et al. (2011) show the heterogeneity of                                     soil fertility and crop productivity within one village.   Some scholars discard development practitioners intentions to define ‘farmers’ for conceiving people as                         a resource that has to be managed. According them labelling people as ‘farmers’, ‘irrigators’ or                             ‘fishermen’ leads to a very partial understanding of peoples’ livelihood (Rocheleau, 2001). In real life                             people have multiple roles and affinities and their motivations for participating in an activity or                             organisation might change over time and depend on other opportunities.   The same counts for perceiving ‘farming’ as a full-time profession. In many cases people move in- and out                                   of farming and realise other livelihood and reproductive activities aside. Many farmers also engage in                             petty-trade or off-season jobs. Migration is a popular strategy among especially young farmers.   Certain organisations and interventions specifically target farmers that are organised. This may bring                         both opportunities and risks. Studies report that cooperatives for example tend to exclude the poorer                             farmers (Thorp et al., 2005). In many cases only the head of the household or the person with a land-title                                       can be member, excluding women and younger farmers. Other studies show that incomes do not                             necessarily rise when farmers are participating in collective action. and marketing costs remain high                           (Bernard and Spielman, 2009).  

A different option for targeting could be considered based on internationally validated indicators such                           

as HFIAS (Household Food Insecurity Access Scale) (Swindale, 2006) and/or MAHFP (months of                         adequate household food provisioning) (USAID 2010; ICCO, 2017). These could be used as basis for                             targeting as well as for measuring results and impact of interventions on food security for target groups                                 and/or control groups.  

3.3 Conclusions on definitions used  

As has become clear from the review, few organisations have published a clear definition online on what                                 they perceive by ‘farmers’. There is a wide range of indicators and criteria organisations use to identify                                 the farmer target group for their investments or interventions. Depending on how the criteria are set,                               farmers are targeted or excluded.  

14

 To prevent exclusion of groups that ought to be included from a development and food security point of view the following aspects have to be considered:  

● One indicator vs. multiple indicators  The use of multiple indicators leads to a more precisely defined target group. However, it requires a                                 more profound analysis of the context as opposed to the use of one indicator. Moreover, it might lead to                                     extra complexity; to what extent and to how many criteria should one comply to be able to participate in                                     a program/ project?   

● Fixed thresholds (e.g. 50 ha) vs. relative ones   Relative indicators tend to be better contextualised; taking into account the specificity and dynamics of                             the intervention location. However the disadvantage is that it is difficult to use relative indicators in                               large scale interventions.   

● Objective indicators (e.g. landholding size) vs. subjective indicators (e.g. capacity).  Subjective indicators such as a certain level of ‘capacity’, ‘willingness’, ‘potential’ might contribute to the                             effectiveness of an intervention, however they do require a profound knowledge of the people and the                               context. The drawback of subjective indicators is that they are very disputable, who decided what                             capacity entails and which farmers can be regarded as ‘capable’?   Overall, the first step when talking about farmers, defining a target group, assessing farmer targeted                             interventions is: awareness of the diverse conceptualisations. Second, knowledge about the drawbacks                       of each criteria helps to better understand and consecutively address the risks for exclusion or                             ineffectiveness of interventions.   

 

15

4. Targeting strategies in food security interventions   

Setting the criteria to define a farmer target group is one. The second step is; applying this definition in                                     practice, meaning: 

➔ Selecting the farmers that comply with the definition ➔ Targeting these farmers. 

 Organisations use diverse strategies. As an example the following section describes a number of                           targeting strategies used in food security interventions. The examples are derived from international                         institutes active in agriculture and food security, such as FAO and WNF. Specific experiences of Dutch                               organisations (incl. AgriProFocus members) were not available online to be used in this quick scan, but                               will be explored and discussed in the course of 2019.  

4.1 Targeting strategies 

The FAO distinguishes between three types of targeting methods:   

1. Administrative targeting: This occurs when the beneficiaries of an intervention are administratively determined by those other than the intended beneficiaries, using such indicators as asset or livestock ownership, age and gender, nutritional status, access to resources such as land and family labour, etc. 

2. Self-targeting: As the name implies, this type of targeting occurs when the type and amount of the benefit attracts only those who are intended to be beneficiaries of an intervention. The use of below-market level wage rates and `inferior' goods are typical of self-targeting interventions. This is the method advocated by the Ethiopian Food Security Strategy (FDRE, 1996, p. 25). 

3. Community-based targeting: This is a targeting approach that involves community decisions about the eligibility of households to participate in food aid programs. Decisions are based on community members' prior knowledge of each household's food security situation and coping ability.  

4.2 Experience in targeted interventions 

This section presents findings from academic sources. The AgriProFocus network intends to facilitate                         further exchanges between network members about their experiences.  Targeting women  3

 Dutch policy aims to strengthen the role of women in food systems. Targeting women in FNS                               interventions does require gender sensitiveness in all aspects of planning and implementation, with                         particular attention for the hidden barriers that influence both women’s participation as well as the                             effectiveness of the intervention. The following factors require attention:   

● Women are often disadvantaged in both statutory and customary land tenure systems resulting                         in weak property and contractual rights to land, water, and other natural resources and high                             productivity differentials between male and female farmers. Strengthening their land rights and                       improving legal awareness might contribute to the effectiveness of a FNS intervention. 

● The extent to which women will invest in agriculture depends on both their tenure security as                               well as their time allocation to household and off-farm livelihood strategies. For being effective                           FNS interventions targeting women need to assess the diverse livelihood strategies in which                         

3 Source: Quisumbing, A. R., & Pandolfelli, L. (2010).

16

female farmers engage, in the context of the (gendered) division of roles and responsibilities                           within the household.  

● Many technologies introduced cannot be applied by women due to their lack of access to credit                               and cash. Analysis of the payment capacity of farmers is often based on the income of male                                 farmers.  

● Women have a key role in household nutrition. Intra-household gender dynamics influence                       whether improved agricultural production leads to an improved quality of the diet of children                           and other members of the household. 

 To achieve results for and with women in FNS interventions it is important to:   

● Follow a systemic approach to address gender dimensions at various levels of the intervention                           or investment, using tools such as for example the AgriProFocus Gender in Value Chains toolkit.  

● To assess what is most effective given the context: individual targeting or group targeting. In                             some communities the poorest members are excluded from groups because membership is                       limited to land owners, heads of households or people that are able to pay a membership fee. In                                   other communities it is culturally inappropriate to work with individual women.  

● To reflect on the composition of the team that manages the intervention: The Ethiopia land                             certification scheme is noteworthy because land administration committees at kebele level (the                       smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia) were required to have at least one female member, this                             positively influenced the involvement of female farmers. 

 Targeting smallholder farmers  Many food security interventions specifically target smallholders. Although criteria to define what is                         perceived as smallholder might be clear, targeting smallholders remains complex. The targeting                       experience of the PAA program in Senegal (FAO and WFP) exemplifies this. The program adopted a                               combination of geographical, categorical and community-based targeting. First geographic targeting                   was applied. An intervention area was selected based on: i) an evaluation of the areas disproportionately                               affected by the successive food and nutrition crises; ii) their rice production potential; iii) the presence of                                 FAO and the WFP. Second; the farmer groupings were selected based on the prevalence of food                               insecurity in their village, according to survey data, and on the following criteria as defined by the farmer                                   union:: i) the groupings are union members and accept the conditions of accession (membership fee and                               statutory texts); ii) the groupings have lowlands suitable for growing rice; and iii) the groupings have not                                 engaged in other rice-growing promotion programmes or projects.  However, when it came to selecting farmers, it was decided to involve all farmers member of the                                 selected groupings, even though they not all of them were food insecure. Reason was that the                               communities were warrant for the differentiating effect of targeting and preferred keeping social                         cohesion. (Pereira et al. 2017)   Targeting nutrition 

Dutch policy aims to pay increased attention to nutrition. Currently many of the FNS interventions are                               focused on agricultural productivity and quality enhancement. Although agriculture can contribute to                       nutrition improvement, the relation is not a straight forward one.   Literature has shown that enhanced production might lead to a better income but seldom has direct                               effects on nutrition. Depending on the type of food outlets available in a particular context, buying food                                 may possibly be associated with rather unhealthy dietary diversification, for instance, through increased                         consumption of fats, sweets, or sugary beverages. Also with regard to cash-crop cultivation evidence is                             ambiguous: case studies show both positive results in which communities gained more income and used                             this to buy more diverse food, and negative examples in which local food availability was reduced. 

17

 Internationally and among Dutch stakeholders there is growing interest in other impact pathways ‘from                           agriculture to nutrition’, which highlights the various dimensions of food production and consumption                         and how these interrelate. Debates and studies also explore intra-household dynamics around food and                           nutrition, with particular emphasis on gender relations. Intra-household perspective on food and                       nutrition helps even more specific targeting, i.e. differentiating between children and adults, men and                           women, etc.   Overall literature concludes that increased income must be accompanied by improvement in the health                           environment to have a significant effect on nutrition. Other agricultural interventions that expect an                           effect on nutrition must be designed to address the key challenges in the agriculture-to-nutrition impact                             pathway.   This implies that for improving the food and nutrition security of rural communities, a contextualized                             analysis of not only food availability and accessibility for different farmer groups is essential, also an                               understanding of local food culture and habits and of the current food systems.   

4.3 Dutch FNS policy and target groups in practice  

Several review studies of Dutch FNS policy, or a subset thereof, have been conducted. This section                               summarises the main insights from these studies related to the issue of targeting. Please refer to the                                 original documents or formal summaries for overviews of review findings.   

● IOB, 2012: Op zoek naar focus en effectiviteit. Beleidsdoorlichting van de Nederlandse inzet                         voor private sector ontwikkeling 2005-2012 

● IOB, 2017: Food for thought Review of Dutch food security policy 2012-2016 ● Royal Tropical Institute, 2016: Mid-Term Review of the Facility for Sustainable                     

Entrepreneurship and Food Security (FDOV).  

IOB, 2012:  

● Evaluations and assessment reports on the outreach or output of an intervention rarely provide                           information on the impact for beneficiaries, let alone the impact on women or on environment.                             Most evaluations report on output level. Few report on impact level, as such it is impossible to                                 assess to what extent poverty alleviation and enhanced food security have been achieved. In                           case data are shared, these are not based on systematic research. Overall the impression is that                               the effects achieved are less than estimated prior to the intervention. Reasons behind are: - lack                               of focus on poverty alleviation, - a too optimistic idea of a trickle-down effect, - problems in                                 realisation, - a wrong theory of change. In many cases poverty problems are not isolated,                             however, in interventions they are treated as such.  

● The transfer of knowledge and technology comes short as the specific and often technological                           knowledge at the level of Dutch entrepreneurs often does not align with the knowledge needs                             of the farmers targeted.  

● Several evaluations show that Dutch development programs (such as FMO-MASSIF, FMO-IDF,                     PSOM/PSI en PIDG) had a limited focus on poverty and paid little attention to development                             relevance. This is not a typical Dutch issue. International evaluations share the same                         observation (IEG (2008; 2011); White (2008); KfW (2010) and the Asian Development Bank                         (2012) Reasons are: - this is not an explicit request of the subsidizing ministry – the double                                 objective of realising profit and having a development impact conflicts. Overall conditional aid,                         such as the Dutch subsidized investments, results in negative impact for developing countries,                         due to increased local prices and unfair competition for local entrepreneurs. 

 

18

IOB, 2017  

Dutch ODA expenditure on food security almost tripled between 2007 and 2012. Emphasis was on rural                               agricultural development with smallholder farmers, often times by means of public-private partnerships                       and multi-stakeholder dialogue. The report presents the following findings:  

The project portfolio shows a large emphasis on value chain development and agricultural research, and                             much less on farmer extension and natural resource management. Positive effects were found of farmer                             extension, of small-scale, intensive farmer field schools, while integrated value chain development,                       which puts farmers at the center of the intervention, was considered very promising. Targeting issues                             were referred in the context of the review of the ‘CATALIST-2’ cassava project in Rwanda: it had been                                   ineffective, due to several reasons including that activities had been spread over a too large number of                                 farmers. Further, the review states that lead-firm value chain development reaches large numbers of                           farmers, but that the impact of these projects on overall income of poorer farmers or environmental                               sustainability is often limited due to a focus on profit. 

Social safety nets, food fortification, and nutritional awareness and behaviour projects generally target                         food-insecure people – though some food fortification interventions target a large portion of the general                             population -, and have contributed to improved access to, stability and utilisation of food. However, for                               contributing to self-reliance in food security, they need to be backed up by more structural solutions.                               Reducing child stunting requires an approach that specifically addresses young child feeding practices.  

Investments in roads (especially feeder roads) are effective in stimulating rural development. Roads are                           known to result in market integration of rural farmers, while also improving food access for rural and                                 urban consumers, enhancing the mobility of rural households, and facilitating off-farm employment. 

Investments in the enabling business environment are likely to be more inclusive of poorer smallholder                             farmers with less commercial potential then inclusive private sector driven value chain interventions.  

A combination of interventions working in the same area with the same population can create synergy,                               and may have better nutritional outcomes than a single intervention.  

Royal Tropical Institute, 2016 

This review found that primary beneficiaries of FDOV projects are not resource-poor rural dwellers (e.g.                             landless, wage labourers) or subsistence farmers, but those farmers that can be considered                         commercially viable in terms of land size and market orientation. According to the reviewers this is due                                 to the emphasis on the business case, the high perceived risk of working with very small, subsistence                                 farmers, and the technology gap between participating Dutch and local companies and subsistence                         farmers.  

The focus on “high potential” small-scale farmers leads to a bias towards male farmers (who often                               formally own the resources) and the underrepresentation of women 

Royal Tropical Institute recommends to further strengthen the development of PPPs that pursue                         integrated value chain development instead of focusing on individual activities (e.g. production) or                         companies (e.g. seed/input providers) along value chains. To promote local private sector actors (SMEs)                           as lead applicants instead of multinational companies and as such ensure local embeddedness. To Focus                             on subsistence farmers to make PPP’s more inclusive rather than exclusively on semi-commercial and                           commercial farmers. To adjust the requirements to enhance impact on gender and youth.  

19

5. Conclusions  Targeting definitions 

Overall, few organisations have published a clear definition of what they perceive by ‘farmers’. In                             practice, a wide range of criteria and indicators are used to differentiate between farmers when                             selecting particular groups to be involved in agrofood development interventions or investments. The                         most commonly used criteria are farm size, market integration, labour input and income, while gender                             and age, the type of farming system, the capabilities of farmers and the level of organisation are other                                   important aspects often considered.  

A common criticism regarding farmer categorisation, is the notion that many farming households have                           diverse livelihoods strategies, in which only part of the income is generated through farming. People                             have multiple roles and affinities and their participation in an activity or organisation might change over                               time and depend on other opportunities. The categories used in the IOB evaluation report (i.e. farmers                               ‘hanging in’, ‘stepping up’ or ‘stepping out’ of agriculture) are therefore rather generalist as compared to                               the realities of rural and urban households. In addition, certain indicators used to classify farmers may                               miss the heterogeneity and the seasonal, climatic, and socio-cultural variations that all influence the                           situation of a ‘farmer’. 

Finally, the discourse on farmer targeting is highly influenced by the fierce debate about the role                               different categories of farmers have in development and in achieving global food security.  

Inclusiveness 

What stands out from the meta-reviews with regard to farmers reached and food security effects                             realised, there is no evidence yet which agricultural interventions contribute to local food and nutrition                             security. The reviews found that private sector led agricultural development contributes to income and                           productivity improvement in many cases, while there is no proven direct effect on enhanced food                             security. According to the reviewers this has to do with the target and assessment criteria formulated at                                 the start of projects. Many projects report at output level. Overall private sector led interventions tend                               to focus on relatively well-off farmers, who have a minimum level of assets.  

Women and vulnerable groups such as landless tend to be left out of private sector led interventions;                                 oftentimes because they do not fulfil selection criteria such as land ownership, a minimum number of                               acres etc. In some cases the barriers are more hidden; for example women are excluded from                               participation in farmer organisations whereas many interventions target organised farmers.  

Interventions specifically by Dutch agri-business focus on productivity and quality improvement, often                       by means of introducing new technology, and related to high-value and export crops while the local                               population might be better helped with expertise on local food crops. Little attention is given in the                                 project design to the socio-cultural context or local barriers to inclusion - such as (gendered) power                               relations- or to nutrition outcomes.  

Rarely is the local population involved in the design of a food security intervention. In many PPPs, the                                   local population is represented by an NGO, which is not always part of the community or well aware of                                     the community dynamics.  

Case examples show that PSD investments often times first focus on broader smallholders and over                             time- in need of remaining competitive- move to the 'larger' & 'better' farmers' entrepreneurs. 

 

20

Recommendations 

Regarding the concepts used for categories of ‘farmers’ (by AgriProFocus network members and the                           broader Dutch FNS community): 

The Dutch FNS policy and its implementation would gain clarity if it made use of clearer language and                                   definitions of the farmer target groups it intends to reach. Also, more clarity is desirable on impact                                 pathways that are at the basis of intervention design, including information on who are the intended                               participants or beneficiaries per element of the impact pathway. It would generate more specific                           expectations about results per group.  

When defining a target group or assessing farmer targeted interventions, it is important to be aware of                                 the diverse conceptualisations. Second, knowledge about the drawbacks of each criteria helps to better                           understand the risks for exclusion or ineffectiveness of interventions.  

Regarding strategies that have been applied to differentiate between farmer target groups and to                           promote inclusion of specific groups:  

For sustainable agricultural sector transformation, and food systems transitions, a local analysis of                         target groups and context is key as a basis to work towards greater inclusiveness, less inequality,                               increased well-being and health. Governance aspects need to be part of this analysis. 

Based on such analysis, during strategic planning and programme/project design phases, a vision and                           strategy for targeting particular groups need to be made, which integrates gender and age (engaging                             youth) in particular. KPI should focus on the desired change, i.e. less inequality, less local food insecurity. 

Flaws in the current implicit selection of groups, or in the assumptions used in current theories of change                                   need to be addressed.  

A flexible, context-specific, and stakeholder-informed approach is key to prevent blueprints or                       classifications that disempower some farmers. 

Learning from outcomes of the past and from evaluations is of key importance in the above. 

Questions for further network dialogue with AgriProFocus members: 

1. Definitions about farmer entrepreneurs that network members use? Particularly definitions                   that help differentiating more precisely between various groups, with regard to the level of                           market integration? E.g. targeting criteria that help focusing on the ‘missing middle’? 

2. Do organisations or investors use ‘entrepreneurship skills’ as an indicator for selection of                         farmers, and if so, how is this measured? 

3. Experiences with farmer targeting? What are the lessons learnt? Particular methods that have                         worked to foster optimal, context-sensitive, complexity-sensitive targeting of farmers? 

4. Experiences with measuring effects on food and nutrition security among targeted farmer                       households and individuals. 

 

 

 

   

21

References Aid Environment and EPFL 2013). Defining Smallholders Suggestions for a Round table Sustainable Biomaterials- 

smallholder definitions. 

AgriProFocus. Gender in value chains toolkit. Practical toolkit to integrate a gender perspective in agricultural value 

chain development https://agriprofocus.com/toolkit 

Berdegué, J.A., & Escobar, G. (2002). Rural diversity, agricultural innovation policies and poverty reduction. AgREN 

Network Paper No. 122. London: Overseas Development Institute.  

Bernard, T., & Spielman, D. J. (2009). Reaching the rural poor through rural producer organizations? A study of 

agricultural marketing cooperatives in Ethiopia. Food policy ,  34(1), 60-69. 

Fan,S., Brzeska, J., Keyzer, M. and Halsema, A. (2013). From subsistence to profit: transforming smallholder farms. 

IFPRI 

FAO (2001). Targeting for Nutrition Improvement Resources for advancing nutritional well-being. 

FAO (2012). Smallholders and Family farmers.  

Food & Business Knowledge Platform & IOB (2018). Making agricultural transformation more inclusive. P ublic 

dialogue about IOB review Food for Thought, breakout session 2. 

https://knowledge4food.net/iob-dialogue-session2/ 

Garner, E., & De la O Campos, A.P. (2014). Identifying the “family farm”: an informal discussion of the concepts and 

definitions. ESA Working Paper No. 14-10. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4306e.pdf  

ICCO (2017). A New Instrument to Measure Food (In)Security: MAHFP. 

https://www.icco-cooperation.org/en/blogpost/a-new-instrument-to-measure--food-insecurity-mahfp  

IOB (2012). Op zoek naar focus en effectiviteit. Beleidsdoorlichting van de Nederlandse inzet voor private sector 

ontwikkeling 2005-2012. 

IOB (2017). Food for thought Review of Dutch food security policy 2012-2015. 

Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J., & Raney, T. (2016). The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and 

Family Farms Worldwide. World Development Vol. 87, pp. 16–29. FAO 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15002703?via%3Dihub  

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture, Nature & Food Quality (2014). Letter to the Parliament - 

Netherlands’ contribution to global food security. 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018). Investing in Global Prospects. Policy document. 

https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2018/05/18/investing-in-global-prospects  

Moseley, W., Schnurr, M., & Bezner Kerr, R. (2015). Interrogating the technocratic (neoliberal) agenda for 

agricultural development and hunger alleviation in Africa. African Geographical Review,  34 (1), 1-7. 

OECD (2015). Strategies for addressing smallholder agriculture and facilitating structural transformation. Working 

Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets.  

Pereira de Miranda, R., Diop, A., & Klug, I. (2017). Fostering food purchase programmes in widespread poverty 

contexts: targeting smallholders within the PAA Africa Programme in Niger. 

Pereira de Miranda, R., Thiam, A. & Klug, I. (2017) Targeting farmers in institutional procurement programmes: case 

study of the PAA Africa Programme in Senegal. FAO & UNDP. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth 

(IPC-IG) Working Paper No. 158. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7441e.pdf-  

22

Quisumbing, A. R., & Pandolfelli, L. (2010). Promising approaches to address the needs of poor female farmers: 

Resources, constraints, and interventions. World Development, 38(4), 581-592. 

Royal Tropical Institute (2016). Mid-Term Review of the Facility for Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Food 

Security (FDOV). 

Royal Tropical Institute & Food & Business Knowledge Platform (2018). Enhancing the effectiveness of 

agriculture-to-nutrition pathways. Key insights from a gender analysis of impact evaluation design. 

https://knowledge4food.net/report-enhancing-effectiveness-agriculture-nutrition-pathways/  

Sustainable Food Lab. Defining, Calculating, and Using a Living Income Benchmark in Agricultural Commodities. 

https://sustainablefoodlab.org/performance-measurement/tools-resources/living-income/ accessed 21-12-2018  

 

Swindale, A. & Bilinsky, P. (2006) Development of a Universally Applicable Household Food Insecurity 

Measurement Tool: Process, Current Status, and Outstanding Issues . The Journal of Nutrition , Volume 136, Issue 5, 1 

May 2006, Pages 1449S–1452S, https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/5/1449S/4670078  

Thorp, R., Stewart, F., & Heyer, A. (2005). When and how far is group formation a route out of chronic 

poverty?.  World development ,  33 (6), 907-920. 

Trienekens, J.H. (2011). Agricultural Value Chains in Developing Countries. A Framework for Analysis. International 

Food and Agribusiness Management Review Volume 14, Issue 2. http://edepot.wur.nl/189057  

USAID, FANTA project (2010). Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) for Measurement of 

Household Food Access: Indicator Guide. https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/mahfp  

Van Wijk, M. T., Tittonell, P., Rufino, M. C., Herrero, M., Pacini, C., De Ridder, N., & Giller, K. E. (2009). Identifying key 

entry-points for strategic management of smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa using the dynamic 

farm-scale simulation model NUANCES-FARMSIM. Agricultural Systems, 102 (1-3), 89-101. 

 

 

 

23