assessing small-holder participation in vegetable value chains tomato, bell pepper, cucumber,...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing small-holder Participation in Vegetable
value chainstomato, bell pepper, cucumber, broccoli,
lettuce, carrot and potato
Cases from El Salvador & Honduras, in collaboration withFAO, CIAT, CRS, AgropymePresented by Madelon Meijer, Agricultural and Development Economics Division (ESA), at the ‘Governance, Coordination and Distribution among Commodity Value Chains’ workshop, FAO, Rome, April 2006.
Structure of the presentation
• Purpose of the study
• Brief note on the methodology used
• Results of the analysis
• Points of reflection/discussion
Purpose of the study:Confront the barriers of linking small farmers
with the supermarket supply chain
1. Identify bottlenecks
2. Facilitate strategic alliances
General scheme for value chain analysis and intervention plan (from SNV-Peru)
GLOBAL STRATEGIES
(2)
Strengthening of
Producers Organizations
Mechanisms for stakeholder dialogue
Semi-participative
Participative
Participative
CHAIN ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE
CHAIN GOVERNANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN
Analysis
INFLUENCE OFEXTERNAL
FACTOR
ProductionWholesale Retail Consumption
Services
USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MARKET AND CONSUMER
DEMAND
HISTORY
SINTHESIS OF ANALYSIS
•Competitiveness
•Comparative advantages
•Bottlenecks
•Sustainability
Define the space of analysis
Territory Product Product flow
ACTORS AND INTERRELATIONS
Evolution of the relation supermarket – producer
Traditional wholesalers supply indivdual stores
Specialized wholesalers
Time
Preferred suppliers
Distribution centers
Private grades & standards
Chang
es in
tech
nolog
y, m
anag
emen
t,
orga
nizat
ion, f
inanc
es a
t the
farm
and
orga
nizat
ional
level
Outsourced and descentralized
Mixed descentralized
Centralized passive
Centralized proactive
Vegetable chain in Honduras
CAFTA
70s: Veg.production
on scale
MINAG: agricultural
policyCompetitive framework
for the horticultural sector
THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Large producers 0.12 %
Small producers 72 %
Medium producers 24.6% %
Ag. hhs: 317.000;
Veg. producers: 15.000
Supermarket n=51; 43% FM
Unorganised farmer Traditional informal trader
Traditional retailer
Traditional wholesaler
Producer organization n=395
Lead farmer n=13
Specialized wholesaler
Imports
Restaurant
Hotel
Hospital
HARVESTER COORDINATION
QUALITY CONTROLPACKAGING
STORAGE & BULKING UP
ROAD TRANSPORT
CEL PHONES
ORGANIZATION
MARKET INFORMATIO
N
BUSINESS SERVICES TECHNOLOGICA
L EXTENSION
LABELS AND STANDARDS
ACOPO 23 members Annual sales US$ 140.000
PHOC 143 members Annual sales US$ 96.000
AGROLEMPA 70 members Annual sales US$ 177.000
COHORSIL 185 members Annual sales US$ 89.000
APRHOFI 110 members Annual sales US$ 184.000
Growth of the ‘lead farmer model’
Year
Sales per producer (in US$)
Regino Ramirez
Percentage increase from 2002
Olvin Salgado
Percentage increase from 2002
2002 1,510 - 150 -
2003 2,230 48% 699 366%
2004 2,764 83% 1,214 709%
2005 3,280 117% 1,267 745%
Analysis
1. Margins, costs and benefits
2. Gap analysis: requirements vs. what small farmers can currently offer
3. NRM Impact
1. Distribution of final consumer price among supply chain actors in Honduras
Products
VariablesToma
te
Bell pepper
Potato
Broccoli
Lettuce
Carrots
Average
Production costs. 15% 22% 24% 15% 17% 17% 18%
Farm to packing shed transportation costs
4% 12% 1% 4% 6% 1% 5%
Net farmer income for sale to producers organization
20% 0% 24% 14% 18% 12% 14%
Transportation costs to Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula
2% 2% 1% 4% 5% 1% 2%
Net producer organization income for sale to specialized wholesaler in Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula
4% 3% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3%
Gross profit for specialized wholesaler for sale to supermarket
25% 32% 16% 32% 22% 33% 27%
Gross profit for supermarket 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Retail price paid by final consumer
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tomato, wholesale price in TGU y SPS
(Lps/Lb)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Aug 0
6
Aug 1
6
Aug 2
4
Sep-0
3
Sep-1
3
Sep-2
1
Oct-0
1
Oct-1
1
Oct-2
2
Nov-0
2
Nov-1
2
Nov-2
2
Nov-3
0
Dec 1
0
Jan
04
Jan
14
Jan
25
Feb-0
4
Feb-1
4
Feb-2
2
Mar
-04
Mar
-14
Apr 0
1
Apr 1
1
Apr 2
0
Apr 2
9
May
-10
May
-20
May
-30
Jun-
07
Jun-
17
Jun-
27
Jul-0
5
Jul-1
5
Jul-2
5
Date
ZONAL BÉLEN
MEDINA CONCEPCIÓN/DANDY
2004 2005
Período de análisis de precios
en la cadenaFuente: www.agroemprendedor.org, basado en precios SIMPAH
2.48
4.55
7.48
-
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Tomato(03 april 2005- 04 june 2005)
1.60Production costs
4.06Producer org. 4.66
Specialized wholesaler
3.89Trader farm gate 3.45
Wholesaler BUY
5.10Wholesaler SELL
7.25Sp. wholesaler-superm.
10.36Supermarket-Consumer
Wholesaler SELL max. average
Wholesaler SELL average
Wholesaler SELL min. average
Lps/Libra
Los precios Mayorista VENTA máximo promedio, promedio y mínimo promedio corresponden a un período de dos añosLos demás valores corresponden a valores promedio de diferentes actores en cada eslabón en diferentes ciudades para el período del 03 de abril al 04 de junio del 2005.
TécnicosComerciales
•La plántula para el transplante es producida principalmente en invernaderos comerciales. Dado el alto costo de la semilla híbrida, esta práctica es cada vez más común.
•Los suelos deben estar bien nivelados para obtener un buen drenaje y reducir la incidencia de enfermedades. Se prefieren los suelos sueltos en época lluviosa.
•Los tomates para el mercado fresco son cultivados en forma arbustiva, con soporte y cosechados en estado verde-maduro (aproximadamente de 80 a 110 días después del transplante).
•En la zona de siguatepeque, se utiliza mayormente el riego por goteo, con rendimiento promedio de 42 toneladas por hectárea (60% de primera calidad y el 40% de segunda o tercera).
•Las principales enfermedades son mancha bacteriana, tizón temprano y tizón tardío (Xanthomonas campestres, Alternaria solani y Phytophthora infestans respectivamente).
•Se debe transportar al mercado de destino clasificados en canastas.
•Los supermercados en Hondura demandan 28.5 Toneladas por semana.
•La presentación de mayor venta es a granel. También se encuentra empacado en bandejas de foam #2 (cinco a seis tomates) y en mallas plásticas (pesos variables). El peso promedio por unidad es de 130 gramos en bandeja y de 232 gramos a granel.
•La única marca Hondureña es “Zamorano”, las demás marcas son importadas de Guatemala (“La Carreta”, “San Lucas Fresh” y “BELUGA’S”).
•LA CARRETA y BELUGA’S (San Lucas Fresh) están certificados por la PIPAA de Guatemala en cuanto a inocuidad de alimentos que garantiza el cumplimiento con buenas prácticas agrícolas (BPA’S) y buenas prácticas de manufactura (BPM).
•Las normas de calidad para comercializar tomate manzano exigen forma y tamaño uniforme, turgente, libre de enfermedades, libre de daño mecánico, con un mínimo de 50% de coloración roja, sin deformaciones, sin sucio.
•El precio por caja de 25 libras es de USD 4.62 para el tomate de primera y de USD 2.56 para el tomate de segunda. La variación de precios se puede apreciar en la gráfica adjunta.
Resumen de aspectos relevantes en la cadena de Tomate de mesa
Required investment - tomatoInvestment Estimated cost
US$ / Mz.
Production Quality seedling 800.00
Micro irrigation 1,815.91
Micro tunnels 437.86
GAP / T.A. 968.04
Post-harvest Assembly point (refrigerated)
5,000.00
Packing 1,010.00
Commercialization Refrigerated transport 28,000.00
Working capital 24,000.00
Organization Management team (costs per year)
37,512.00
3. NRM impact
To meet requirements: Investment needed in
• Management techniques– waterharvesting and drip irrigation– contour planting– soil conservation / IPM / GAP
• Organizational issues– scaled planting– post-harvest management– marketing
Vegetable chain in Honduras
CAFTA
70s: Veg.production
on scale
MINAG: agricultural
policyCompetitive framework
for the horticultural sector
HARVESTER COORDINATION
QUALITY CONTROLPACKAGING
STORAGE & BULKING UP
ROAD TRANSPORT
CEL PHONES
ORGANIZATION
MARKET INFORMATIO
N
BUSINESS SERVICES
THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Large producers 0.12 %
Small producers 72 %
Medium producers 24.6% %
Ag. hhs: 317.000;
Veg. producers: 15.000
Unorganised farmer
Producer organization n=395
Lead farmer n=13
Traditional informal trader
Specialized wholesaler
Traditional retailer
Traditional wholesaler
Supermarket n=51; 43% FM
Restaurant
Hotel
Hospital
Imports
TECHNOLOGICAL EXTENSION
LABELS AND STANDARDS
Conclusions
• Regarding horizontal coordination: Low levels of organization among small holder producers
• Regarding vertical coordination: Lack of coordination among supply
chain actors
• Regarding the enabling environment: Public policies of of step with chain reality
Main recommendations• strengthen the ‘espacios de concertación’.
• develop alternative organizational models
• improve the linkage between supply and demand of service provision, esp. financial services (credit, leasing, compra de facturas and ag. insurance)
• improve public policies, aimed at both making the chain more competitive and with a fair distribution of benefits
Discussion points
• Replicability of PO support
• Experience in alternative organizational / business models
• Implications for policy
• Further empirical work required