Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

This is a fascinating discussion and I do regret joining it so late.

I think Susan has introduced the extremely relevant issue of “non-trade” measures. Carving out the non-trade measures is indeed a task that the trade regime has not addressed despite being called upon to do so on numerous occasions.

The architects of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) had stated in the preamble to the Agreement that the “reform programme [initiated by the AoA] should be made in an equitable way among all Members, having regard to non-trade concerns, including food security ...” (emphasis added). But, despite the fact that the importance of food security was noted, the AoA did not include specific provisions that WTO members could use to ensure food security for their populations. This issue came up once again during the mandated review of the AoA in 1999, which also saw a number of interventions aimed at formalising food security as a non-trade concern. Finally, the Doha Declaration spoke of the mainstreaming of the special and differential treatment in the AoA “so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development” (emphasis added). In the agriculture negotiations in the Doha Round, the G-20 and the G-33 groupings pushed for the “special products” and “special safeguard mechanism” as two instruments that can help in realising the objective of food security and rural development. The issue of “public stockholding for food security purposes” reminded us once again that the developing countries’ efforts to meet the objective of food security in the policy regime underlined by the AoA can face serious headwinds.

Two decades of implementation of AoA has made it fairly obvious that the objectives like food security do not sit well with the rules of trade liberalisation. In fact, recognition of “non-trade concerns” like food security are seen to run counter to fundamental tenets of trade liberalisation, for such concerns can only be addressed through the use of policy instruments. One of the key objectives of trade liberalisation is to limit the policy space available with the governments, so that they are not able to introduce policy instruments that “distort” the functioning of the markets.

Therefore, the real challenge is to design a framework wherein trade rules and agriculture policies can be mutually supportive. Further, agricultural policies must be anchored on the needs of the small-holders, since this is the section that suffers from the worst forms of food insecurity. This implies that the key to ensuring food security at the household level in a large majority of developing countries is to provide security of livelihoods for the small and marginal farmers. There is overwhelming experience that the markets do not recognise the needs of these producers and therefore policy interventions are necessary to support them. While the details of the interventions can be worked out on a case-by-case basis, it is imperative that a robust framework is developed for dealing with the scourge of food insecurity.

I would like to respond to Christian Häberli. Certainly one can be too diplomatic, in part that comes from the experience of dealing with sometimes very sensitive issues through interaction with governments. In that context, how you phrase things becomes quite important. In this particular case, however, I was not trying to reconcile irreconcilable trade stances, but merely pointing out that trade can be beneficial for food security, but not trade alone: A lot of the work has to be done at the country level first.

The  "holistic food value chain approach" was borrowed from the commentary by Dennis, who advocated addressing the multiple challenges that farmers face as part of a value chain. He has a very strong point. If governments (but also international organizations, donors, NGOs) focus only on production – which in fact occurs in many projects – ignoring marketing and logistics bottlenecks, these investments would be lost or could even make matters worse locally (consider local prices dropping in case of oversupply if farmers are given seeds and technology to produce more than usual and without a proper outlet to other markets).

At the other extreme, introducing trade reforms, or changes in the way market functions (e.g. withdrawal from state trading or changing the rules for domestic marketing or export procedures), or, say, assisting cooperatives in setting up export operations – all that without having the necessary volumes of production or products of certain quality – is also a completely lost effort. I have seen this in many countries, and I am sure you have too. Hence, very loosely, I called it a “holistic” approach, meaning that if we want the agricultural sector (or food security, not the same thing, sure) to benefit from trade, the whole chain needs to be considered.

Re. the link between smallholders' participation in export markets and food security.

To the broader question: there is strong evidence that the removal of trade barriers leads to improved food security—particularly through the prevention of food price spikes. (See, for example, Kym Anderson and Johan Swinnen’s presentation on “How can trade improve food security in sub-Saharan Africa?” at http://fsi.stanford.edu/multimedia/how-can-trade-improve-food-security-sub-saharan-africa-0 or my own paper, “Feed the Future Learning Agenda Literature Review: Expanded Markets, Value Chains and Increased Investment” at http://agrilinks.org/library/feed-future-learning-agenda-literature-review-expanded-markets-value-chains-and-increased).

There is also evidence that smallholder market participation in general is key to poverty reduction. (See, for example, “Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa” by Christopher Barrett.) The impacts on smallholder farmers of engaging in export agriculture of course depend on the specific market structures and integration mechanisms. Ashraf, Giné and Karlan provide a cautionary tale of depending on a single buyer in “Finding Missing Markets (and a Disturbing Epilogue): Evidence from an Export Crop Adoption and Marketing Intervention in Kenya.”

But well-structured export development initiatives, that strengthen multiple market channels and ensure an equitable sharing of risk, can substantially increase incomes, which can be invested in ways that strengthen food security. ACDI/VOCA’s projects in support of smallholder production of specialty coffee in Ethiopia, birds eye chilies in Malawi, and cocoa in Vietnam—to name but a few—have allowed small-scale farmers to increase their incomes, accumulate assets, and diversify their livelihoods to increase their household food security.

Data on impact on diet seems to be much harder to find. It is an area that we at ACDI/VOCA are investing in now—and we would love to hear from others who have measured nutritional improvements as a result of incomes increases. We know, of course, that even when dietary diversity increases, the inclusion of unhealthy food groups means that this does not necessarily improve nutrition. And we all know anecdotally that incomes alone don’t lead to nutritional gains, but that nutritional education, improved sanitation, health services, etc., are also required. So smallholders’ inclusion in market-oriented production can be part—but will not be all—of the solution to food security.

What were the “necessary and sufficient” conditions that enabled the mid-1800’s American Agricultural Revolution and how can we replicate/update/adapt those necessary and sufficient conditions in 2015 for Africa?

Here are my answers on the “necessary and sufficient” conditions:

1.  Farm improvements (seed, mechanization, etc)
2.  Storage (grain elevators, aka storage & handling methods)
3.  Transportation (canals, railroads - adapted to rivers and roads today)
4.  Markets (grain merchants that travelled to farms, the Chicago, Minneapolis, etc. boards of trade, Liverpool grain market, Chicago Futures Markets)
5. Communications (often included in “Markets” - the transcontinental telegraph, transatlantic telegraph, adapted to mobile phones, tablets, laptops, radio and television)
6. Scientific Agricultural Education (adapted today to Primary School curriculum)
7. Land Policy (enabling farmers to buy government-owned land inexpensively) Plus perhaps an 8th: political stability.

These are based primarily on academic literature, especially Louis Bernard Schmidt’s articles from the 1920s-1930’s, quoted by subsequent researchers in the 1940’s - 1970’s.  Harvard Kennedy School Associate Professor Ryan Sheely and I are collaborating on a much more detailed journal article on this topic.

One final comment to emphasize why these “necessary and sufficient conditions” need to be adapted to local conditions: the locals know where the elephants walk at night.  Never bet against local knowledge.  You will lose the bet. 

Dennis

1.       From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?

The issue is not to oppose trade and food security, but to discuss which trade rules are decreasing or increasing food security. It is about the priorities given to agriculture and trade policies. Trade should be put at its right place, not more, not less.

The fact is that the present international trade rules (GATT agreement signed in Marrakech, 1994) have failed. They have been formatting the agriculture policies of all WTO members from the 90es. Priority was given to the “competitiveness on international markets”, as we could see for example with the evolution of the European agriculture policy. To import more (the WTO rules impose to import at least 5% of consumption of each agricultural product, even if the country has surpluses), to export more was the new trend.

Food security should be the first priority of any agriculture policy. If it relies very much on import/export, it is vulnerable and can be put in danger in case of crisis.  It is not the same to have food available coming from far away or coming from the region. The globalization of agricultural markets with the present international trade rules is working against food security because it is increasing dependency of people, regions, countries on international trade.

By putting all farmers competing on a global market, the present WTO rules put prices at the level of the lowest costs of production , or at the level of prices artificially low because of subsidies, and excludes many farmers from their own local/regional market. As we can see for example with the export of EU milk powder , chicken, grain,… ruining production capacities in Africa.

The WTO rules allow rich countries to continue their dumping: they just moved from export subsidies to direct decoupled subsidies  put in a “green” box, which is nothing else as the whitewashing of dumping.

The abandonment of supply management policies, of public grain reserves and the financiarisation of agricultural markets have increased the volatility of agricultural prices, which is destabilizing agriculture and food security. When food prices are going suddenly up as in 2008, it is dramatic for rural and urban poors.

 Indeed the WTO rules and the “Free” Trade Agreements (“F”TAs) have not only decreased food security or made it relying too much on import/export, they have decreased the capacities of the countries to develop appropriate policies for their food security.  They have decreased food sovereignty. Power has moved to international companies benefiting first of international trade and using the huge differences in production costs, labour cost, environmental costs, and taxes.             

2.      What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security measures and trade rules?  Can rights-based approaches play a role?

To create coherence between food security and trade rules, we have to change the present international trade rules and FTAs. There is no stable food security without food sovereignty. We need new trade rules based on the right of food sovereignty, which should be recognized at UNO.

Michel Buisson has developed a detailed proposal to be discussed (book in French: “conquérir la souveraineté alimentaire” http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=livre&no=41507)

Food sovereignty will deliver other priorities to agricultural policies and give new space to agricultural policies, putting trade at its right (still important) place. Countries or regional unions of countries would have the right to define their own agriculture policies, with a ban of any form of dumping regarding third countries (export at price below the production costs of exporting country).

For achieving food security, the priority of any agriculture policy should be to feed the population first with local/regional products and no more import/export. This would also respond to the climate and energy challenges by limiting transport on long distances. Trade remains important between regions/countries with surpluses (especially for grain) and regions/countries with deficit, but also to exchange specific products. Each region has specific products to exchange with other regions. To stabilize agricultural prices, markets should be organized, with the constitution of public grain reserves.

3.      How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might be compatible with a global market-based approach to food security? 

I agree with JM Boussard. It is impossible in the present WTO/”F”TAs framework. CFS report 2011 on price volatility and food security, reports of Olivier De Schutter UNO, FAO A.Sarris proposals of June 2009,…..  demonstrate that the WTO trade rules of 1994 and the “liberalization “ of agriculture markets have failed to achieve food security; they have made the situation worse. And they increased other problems like climate change, biodiversity erosion, energy consumption.

We need a new approach, a new paradigm, new priorities which benefit populations instead of a few companies. Let us develop a local market-based approach to food security, keeping international trade at its right place.

Free Trade, Food Security, Human Rights & Opportunity:

It is important for Food Security and Free Trade that participants work together AS participants/partners, treating all stakholders with dignity and respect. Our "bottom-up" approach to Food Security Value Chain is based upon historical precedent from the US mid-1800's Agricultural Revolution, which perhaps needs a bit of contextualizing.  Our underlying premise is that all humans are created equal, regardless of whether they live in a grass hut, a chalet in Gstaad, or a Park Avenue townhouse.

In 1821, Nathan Dillon was one of many families that migrated from the Ohio frontier to the Illinois prairie. His children died from starvation, exposure, and diseases such as cholera.  They had no doctors, no schools, and were subsistence level farmers in every way. In the Midwest US just 50 years ago there were still farm communities that had no indoor plumbing, no electricity, and no telephones. The point is that none of us are far removed from the rural farm areas of America, Africa or Asia.

Human innovation and drive, combined with education, technology improvements, transportation, storage, and market development, were the "necessary and sufficient" conditions that enabled the Revolution in mid-1800's US Agriculture.  Trade Policy, Agricultural Policy, and Food Security Policy all need to support those "necessary and sufficient" conditions.  Our role is to provide those opportunities to support those "necessary and sufficient" conditions.

What is very exciting is that as we make opportunities available to local smallholder and rural farmers, (necessary & sufficient conditions) the following generation will not only surpass their parents, but their creativity will apply the technology and knowledge in ways we can not even imagine.  The students will become the teachers.

Dennis Bennett

CEO, AfriGrains

Effect of Trade on Food Security

In most societies today, there is an intense, and at times absurd, division of labour. And while environmental degradation continues apace, world population continues to increase. It is within this framework that we ought to try to understand the effect of trade on food security.

Division of labour  gives rise to a set of secondary needs connected with our nutritional needs. Other things being equal, trade is concerned with enabling us to  satisfy those secondary needs, for instance, making food physically accessible (by placing it in shops, storing it until needed, and transporting it, etc).

Therefore, it may be argued that trade plays an important part in giving us food security, especially as proper storage of food, packaging, and transport are costly and complex operations. This is true as far as it goes, but trade is not motivated neither by a desire to observe the 'golden mean', nor yet by altruism. It is this aspect of trade that can turn it a threat to food security.

When there are no clear legal limitations on the extent of profit one may gain by food trade, or consideration of its impact on food security, trade can pose a serious threat to food security of a community.

It is not so long ago that the so-called Great Grain Robbery took place, and paradoxically enough, it was not committed by 'capitalist culprits'. Now, the necessary conditions for food security are its sufficient production and general availability. For the sake of simplicity, I shall not include another important factor, viz., its affordability at this point.

With respect to the effects of trade on food security, sufficient food production cannot be sustained if the producers are not sufficiently rewarded for their important role in society. However, when one looks at the retail food prices and what the producers get,  and what the intermediaries earn by storage, packaging, transport and selling,  one can easily see that both food producers and the consumers are at a considerable disadvantage. So, food trade as it is practised today does not seem to promote food security.

Moreover, speculation in food stuffs as practised in 'future markets' is based on buying as cheap as possible, keeping them in storage until demand rises, and sell it at the highest possible price.  By any standard of justice, higher production should entitle the food producer to reap benefit of his work, but here, it is the opposite. What is even worse for food security, consumers will have to pay more for what was bought very cheap. High retail prices are obviously  a threat to food security.

I think food producers should be encouraged to form moderate sized cooperatives to handle their produce, so that everybody involved in food trade from the producers to the consumers will have fair play. This will encourage many more people to take up agriculture as a profession, rather than shunning it as many do now.

I would also like to mention how well-meant but ill-adviced economic advice to promote trade could reduce food security. The well-known case is that of Senegal and the Cameroons during the 1980'ies.

During the pre-advice era, peanuts were one of the main sources of protein in people's diet in those countries. It was extensively cultivated, cheap, and widely available. The people enjoyed a reasonable food security, and then the two governments entered into trade. Peanuts were changed from being a food crop into a cash crop. They were gathered and exported, mainly to France for industrial processing.

A few years later, most children in those coutries were malnurished, and the same applied to the adults. Foreign currency from peanut exports did not go into sustain food security,  and one important component of the people's diet became scarce and dear. This is a classic example of food trade undermining  food security.

I think as civilised people,  it is time for us to appreciate that it is not permissible to regard food as a mere article of trade open to every kind of speculation and sharp practice. Food represents the possibility of continued life. Hence, it is high time that the international community with its pretensions to civilisation, draws up an enforceable  code conduct for trade involving food, and moreover, empower the producers and consumers so that they can get more involved in the food distribution chain to their mutual benefit.

Lal Manavado.

Ekaterina, thanks for your summing up. I am not much for triplicas but Max Blanck asked me to feel free to react. (Btw, your reference to the Salvatici study is welcome. My favourite of a bridging attempt remains Jennifer Clapp even where I do not agree with her.

You are right: even scientists, let alone stakeholders, have "often contradictory" views. But when you call for a "holistic food value chain approach" is this not a diplomatic term avoiding competition of ideas and among food suppliers? Pascal Lamy and Olivier de Schutter cannot be both right! (I have argued elsewhere that they are both wrong.)

On the trade liberalisation vs food security debate, my view is still that the former is a blunt instrument able to both free AND kill farmers. By this I mean that neither towing the free trade line OR calling for food sovereignty ensures more food security. My last word, in CNN speak, would be that when the chips are down, safeguards are better than tariffs. And, in WTO speak, Green is better than Amber - but it will be a long time before this sinks in with policy space defenders, and Doha Round negotiators, everywhere!

Dear All,

as to point 1.: For my observation it is pretty clear, that free trade in most cases contributed positively to four dimensions of food security - for most people in the world. But it didn't reach the rural sites at the periphery specifically and came at high - one may say too high - environmental costs. So this appoach needs correction.

As for two (coherence): for 800 million hungry people the current system doesn't work. The trade system is one component in it. Around 70% of the hungry live in rural areas. The theory is, that social safety nets would take care fo the loosers of competitive market economy. But the social safety nets are, if at all existent, translucent. Given the right to food, more coherence would be necessary. For more coherence one approach could be the Rights Based Apporach, but, as we see, it would need more translation into specific agreements concerning the food system. I think, to gain more coherence we must understand the specificity of the food system more in depth.

As for three (compatibility): Because agriculture (the food system) is special, there has been and is in the WTO the special Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Although the specificity of this sector is addresses with the AoA, the content of todays AoA - see the preambula - is as well "market orientation", like in any other agrement. Market orientation is today mainly read as "export orientation", which, in the end, means specialisation and therefore industrialization of agriculture. Small scale farmers in agro-biodiverse systems are ruled out by this mechanisms. There is - so far - no compatibility. The compatibility would rise, if (negative) externalities would be integrated in the price of goods - nitrogen surpluses for example. Only then the market could really play. But this isn't the case today. But even then - the industry logic of specialisation is against the diversity principle of nature - and therefore agriculture. To preserve (bio-)diversity we need a different orientation than market orientation. I opt for "development orientation" instead. - Development of soil fertility (i.e. carbon storage),  development of sovereign seed breeding, development of local markets and resilient communities. The food system is from its nature of local character - short ways, freshness, trust, diversity. That doesn't mean no markets or import and export. But only complementing the local oriented food systems. Indias approach for food security in the Bali package makes it obvious - for food security purposes we need a different rule setting, than in other cases. - I think we have to make a decision: we should accept, that the food system is specifically different to other sectors. It needs an own set of rules, as already addressed with an AoA. But this AoA needs a different inlay than of today. As agriculture is the main stumbling bloc in the WTO and many ather FTAs - if we find a solution for this sector, many other market access negotiations could start flourishing. The rule for the food system would be something like "local is first choice". It would be in good tradition of liberal thinking, that people can decide for themselves what they want - make preferential decisions; this should be "allowed". Tarrifs and other NTBs wouldn't be necessary, so no "protection" would occur to hinder the free flow of other goods where needed.  

Thank you all for this continuing dialogue.  Both moderators have raised some very important questions. 

How can the FSVC approach address what is grown from a bottom-up perspective (rather than a market demand perspective)?

We believe there needs to a multi-faceted bottom-up approach to FSVC that includes education, market demand, and technology improvements.

EDUCATION:  One of the important elements that Professor Louis Bernard Schmidt discussed in his multiple papers on the American Agricultural Revolution in the 1800s was “the establishment and growth of various agencies for promoting agricultural scientific knowledge”.  We believe education is a necessary condition in “bottom-up” FSVC improvements.  Local smallholder farmers and their children need to learn the modern science of farming as well as the basics of nutrition.  

We are incorporating what we know today about sustainable farming methods, biodiversity, and nutrition into classes at the village level.  We want the next generation of smallholder farmers to not only understand scientific farming, but be able to creatively apply that knowledge in appropriate, sustainable, and biodiverse ways.

This agricultural education will enable us to collaborate with the local smallholders to produce a much more nutritionally balanced “suite” of products than they now produce using current manual farming methods.  

MARKET DEMAND:  We are not only producing food ourselves, but we are also offering to purchase surplus food from local smallholder farmers.  We have some ability to influence what type of food is produced at the local level by offering to buy specific types or varieties of food.  This alone will not increase the diversity or nutrition of food, until farmers are educated about why they need to produce non-traditional crops, but it does reinforce the education with financial incentives.

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS:  Education and market demand for non-traditional products need to be combined with practical ways to produce those new crops.  Some of the technology is new seed, some of the technology includes new ways/tools to farm. Bottom line, it is finding ways to assist local smallholder farmers to meet the desire (education) and demand for new, non-traditional crops.

How is what is grown determined so that diversity, including dietary diversity, is encouraged and how does this approach ensure that food gets to the hungriest regions?

This is a very important question.  One of the oft-repeated comments all of us in food security have to overcome is “We have never done it that way before”, followed often by the comment “If it was good enough for my grandmother, it is good enough for me…”  

We are addressing the issue of dietary diversity using a combination of agricultural and nutritional education, demonstrations of non-traditional foods grown locally to improve dietary diversity (e.g., sample farm plots with new crops), and offering incentives to local farmers for non-traditional crops.  

Moving food to the hungriest regions is primarily a transportation and logistics challenge, especially when combined with market pricing.  A historical example may help to demonstrate the issue.  In 1830, it is reported that the cost of moving a wagon load of grain 60 miles to Chicago was greater than the sale price for that grain in Chicago.  The result was that no grain was shipped 60 miles to Chicago.  It was not until the cost of shipping grain dropped substantially due to the opening of a canal, followed by railroads, that Chicago became a major grain center.  

The situation is the same today.  The cost of transporting from food surplus areas to food deficit regions has to be in line with the market price at the delivery/sale point.  Supply chain literature has much to say on this topic, of course.

The challenge in areas  where subsistence level farmers have lost their annual crops (and thus will starve without external assistance), is that they have no resources to purchase food they were planning on growing themselves.  This is where the World Food Programme must enter the picture, because by definition subsistence level farmers do not grow enough food for more than a single crop year, nor do they have storage methods or capacity to safely store food from one crop year to the next.

The long-term, systemic solution to the dilemma of the subsistence farmer is to change both farming methods so that they are capable of growing surplus food, and the storage technology so that they can safely store grain from one year to the next.  A corollary option is to encourage farmers to grow surplus food that they can sell, and encourage financial savings using mobile banking technology.  This would enable them to purchase food at market prices should their crops fail.

How does the FSVC approach encourage the continuous process of developing and maintaining agriculturally biodiverse systems (one of the components mentioned in question 3)?

In our experience, agriculturally biodiverse systems are a future development goal for much of East Africa.  However, long-term agriculturally biodiverse systems (ABS) can be developed and maintained through a combination of local education, market demand and incentives, reinforce by demonstrations on the practical benefits of ABS. Education on nutrition and sustainable farming methods creates the awareness and knowledge, local incentives provide financial benefits of behavior change, while demonstrations of the practical benefits shows that “ABS really works”.  

Is the market-based, traded system resource intensive?  What about negative environmental externalities beyond the loss of biodiversity?

 The transformation from human-powered, manual farming and transportation to animal-powered then to mechanized farming & transportation systems enables increased productivity with less labor. This transformation is capital-intensive, for it requires capital to purchase a horse, oxen, tractor or plow. It is more efficient to carry farm produce in bulk, via truck, barge, or ship than to carry the same amount of produce on the backs of people.  But someone must provide the capital to purchase those productivity-enhancing tools, and the market prices must work so that investors or lenders earn a return.

Negative environmental externalities have frequently occurred in the FSVC where we have not been aware of those negative effects. In general, farmers are (and should be) long-term stewards of their land and resources, so the most sustainable methods provide earnings now and long into the future. As improved sustainable methods are developed and proven to work, implementation occurs as that knowledge travels and capital becomes available (if necessary).  The combination of education/knowledge transfer at the local level, combined with technology improvements and behavior changes, should minimize environmental externalities. 

Can one use the FSVC approach and support small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse systems?  How is specifically does it do this?

Supporting small-scale farmers using the FSVC means educating small-scale farm communities, removing“blockages” to the FSVC, and encouraging behavioral/cultural changes where necessary to create a robust, sustainable, agro-biodiverse local  “system”.  Each element is a necessary condition, but separately are not sufficient conditions to create sustainable agro-diverse systems.

Education in agricultural science and nutrition needs to be incorporated at the primary school level, as part of the standard curriculum.  In regions where it is rare for children to attend school beyond Primary School, the farming and nutrition curriculum needs to be included to reach the broadest possible number of students.

Agro-biodiverse, surplus food production needs to be incented through offers of forward purchases of food at planting time, because it is too late to effect behavior change (i.e, plant more crops) any later in the crop cycle.  If additional seed is required, then innovative solutions (e.g., “seed loans”) should be adopted so that that farmers are able to plant and grow surplus crops.  

At harvest time, storage and handling facilities have to be available to thresh, dry, and store the newly created surplus crops.  Trucks, roads and barges need to be acquired to transport surplus produce to storage facilities, and to markets.  Supply chain logistics are very important to solving the FSVC impediments.

Price risk of the trading company or food cooperative or intermediary must also be carefully managed, so that they can pay reasonable prices for local agro-biodiverse food and profitably store, transport and sell that production to the end consumers.  

Dennis Bennett

CEO, AfriGrains