Policy, Institutions and Processes and the SL Approach

At least eight main issues or lessons for the policy, institutions and processes aspects of the SL approach and framework emerge from these case studies

(i) Research-extension-farmers’ organisation linkages can be informal (e.g. through individuals) or formalised (e.g. through binding contracts for the provision of services). The most effective linkages tend to be those that are formalised. These also tend to be the strongest mechanisms for ensuring downward accountability of agricultural service providers to farmers.

(ii) Farmers’ livelihood opportunities are shaped by the wider policy environment (legislation, history, political parties and their policies, international organisations and their policies….), but also by the strength of their own organisations. Effective farmers’ organisations have demonstrated their success in drawing down agricultural services (research and extension). FO’s and NGO’s play a critical role in improving economic and livelihood opportunities of their members – conditioning and securing access to resources and opportunities, and to technical services (such as agricultural research and extension). Civil society institutions of various types (CBO's, FO’s and NGO’s) are critically important to farmers in the construction of their livelihoods in West and Central Africa. Where such organisations are weak or non-existent the poor’s access to external resources and knowledge tends to be more limited, having a direct impact on livelihood opportunities. Support for farmers’ organisations therefore remains critical to the achievement of sustainable livelihoods.

(iii) Many different types of FO exist (membership, non-membership, project inspired or traditional groups…) – strongest seem to be those of voluntary association with strong economic activities or a strong and diversified funding base (e.g. FUGN). When they have a solid membership base, and a coherent set of objectives derived from members core interests, and usually a set of successful economic activities, they can increase the voice of farmers and their influence on public and private sector organisations – and even improve their influence on agricultural policy.

(iv) Farmers’ organisations are usually successful advocates for their members and effective intermediaries where there is an enabling political and institutional environment, including:

• legislation guaranteeing freedom of association and encouraging the formation of groups for economic and social activities and giving them legal recognition;
• decentralisation of political authorities and central technical ministries (agriculture, research, extension);
• effective local, regional and national coordination bodies - perhaps linked to regional level decentralised local government authorities - that bring together, and give equal voice to, representatives of all the actors concerned with rural development. The ways in which farmers’ organisations are represented in these structures must be clarified, however (e.g. farmers’ chosen representatives participating at all stages of decision-making processes) and sustainable funding arrangements that allow them to work properly need to be established;
• availability of donor funding to facilitate capacity building, the construction of national farmers’ movements, access to technical inputs and credit, and improved marketing networks;
• development-oriented agricultural service organisations committed to a consultative approach, and experienced in participatory methodologies, sociological analysis, systemic approaches and bottom-up approaches to priority setting;
• public agricultural research organisations that are stable and financially secure, with an ability and willingness to respond to farmer demands and rapidly disseminate research results through farmers’ organisations. This may depend on secure international or private sector funding for public agricultural services given the reality of reduced availability of State funds.

(v) Strong local organisations are key to building sustainable livelihoods. Farmers’ organisations have, when the conditions are right, been able to ensure that farmers have a voice in agricultural service delivery. They can be effective vehicles for empowerment of their members, where empowerment refers to people taking control of the development process. FO’s have the potential to empower individuals (FO members) and strengthen a community in its relations with outsiders and the wider society (including international agencies, political authorities and central government). However, this study showed the critical importance of supportive policies and an institutional environment to strengthen farmers’ organisations and their capacity to work together for common objectives, to enable them to effectively draw down services from agricultural service providers. Also, it showed that FO’s need to be federated at a regional or national level to gain influence or "a voice".

(vi) Relationships between policy makers, development organisations and development processes. Effective mechanisms for collaboration between actors is essential. Nevertheless, power relationships between the actors are complex. Farmers’ organisations that develop their own objectives and dynamic, gaining access to secure and diverse funds, often gain the power to request or demand agricultural services that are appropriate to their needs. However, government may sense a threat to its authority from overtly political farmers’ organisations and in this case public sector bodies may not wish to work in collaboration with them.

(vii) The political context defines, to a large extent the depth of participation and downward accountability that can be achieved. In analysing the effectiveness of different policies and institutions that should increase downward accountability of agricultural service providers, care must be taken to remember that participation, participatory methodologies, farmers’ organisations and decentralisation can be used to opposing ends: to enfranchise rural populations, or to administer and control rural populations. The political context and political culture are central to understanding the effectiveness of different approaches. The idea of addressing the principle and practice of accountability introduces a specifically political component into discussions on agricultural service delivery that more often than not focus on largely functional and technocratic approaches.

(viii) Farmers’ organisations and local organisations are part of the social and institutional context within which rural individuals and families construct and adapt their livelihoods. They are at the same time "social capital" for rural people and can constitute a political resource, or "political capital". They are a resource in themselves and also institutions that mediate access to resources (such as physical capital – mills, presses etc).

(ix) In summary, this research shows that the analysis of policy, institutions and processes is critical for the development of the SL approach because it is these that shape the environment within which people gain access to assets and knowledge. They can also build the required capacity among rural people to find ways of transforming these into positive livelihood outcomes.