Concurso de estudios de caso del programa Regoverning Markets

Adjuntamos la convocatoria del programa "Regoverning Markets" para la presentacion de propuestas para la realización de estudios de caso, bajo dos modalidades:

1) Estudios en profundidad de prácticas innovadoras que permitan la vinculación de pequeños productores agrícolas y micro y pequeñas empresas rurales, a mercados dinámicos NACIONALES.

2) Informes breves de innovaciones en políticas públicas o de políticas de agentes privados, que hayan conducido a una mayor participación de pequeños productores agrícolas y micro y pequeñas empresas rurales, en mercados dinámicos NACIONALES

El plazo para la presentación de propúestas vence el 26 de noviembre 2006. Las propuestas se pueden presentar en español.

Call for proposals Component 2: Innovative practice in connecting small-scale producers with dynamic markets October 2006

---

1. Introduction

Regoverning Markets ( www.regoverningmarkets.org ) is a global research and policy support programme that aims to advice public and private sector organizations on approaches that can anticipate and manage the impacts that dynamic changes in local and regional agri-food markets are having on small-scale producers.

The programme is based around three working components:

• Country-level research to analyse the keys to inclusion into dynamic markets, the implications and opportunities for small-scale producers


• Case studies to learn from innovative practices in connecting small-scale producers with dynamic, restructured markets


• Stakeholder processes to bring these findings into the wider policy arena in public sector, private sector and civil society.

2. Call for proposals

Regoverning Markets is pleased to announce a call for case study analyses for Component 2. We are seeking case studies of two types:

• Full empirical case studies of innovative practices in connecting small-scale producers with dynamic markets; and


• Short desk studies about policy innovations in the public or private sectors that have led to enhanced market participation by small-scale producers

2.1 Full empirical case studies

The case studies must address innovative practices in connecting small-scale producers with dynamic markets at local or regional level (hence not export markets such as developing countries to developed countries). “Innovative practice” refers to the actions and policies of private companies, public institutions, farmer organizations or non-governmental organizations that resulted in enhanced participation of small-scale producers in restructured markets. The market linkages may be between the small-scale producers directly with retail structures, through procurement intermediaries and or to the processing sector which is linked to dynamic markets. It is important that the innovative practice has already been implemented for some years so that the results are tangible and provide an opportunity for learning.

The call builds on emerging insights from a first round of case studies that addressed the experiences of five private companies and ten farmer organizations in linking small-scale producers with dynamic markets. The cases generated a set of knowledge issues that are central in the current call for proposals:

1. Evidence suggests that companies working with small-scale producers always make use of public subsidy arrangements. We welcome studies that show why and under what conditions private companies engage with and invest in small-scale producers without making use of public grants.


2. Evidence suggests that companies tend to work with unorganized or loosely organized small-scale producers. We welcome studies that show why and under what conditions private companies start business relations with well-organized small-scale producers.


3. Evidence suggests that the private sector (processors, retailers) is generally seen as having a passive role, buying product when available at the right quality, price, risk profile and transaction cost. We welcome cases where the private sector has deliberately worked with small-scale producers on a significant scale, as partners in rural development.


4. Evidence suggests that farmer organizations need to implement exclusionary arrangements towards new members (e.g. strict selection criteria) in order to consolidate their position in dynamic markets and remain competitive in the supply chain. We welcome studies that show how farmer organizations can successfully manage ‘exclusion" within their organization.


5. Evidence suggests that farmer organizations that supply to dynamic markets have little or no influence over chain governance issues. We welcome studies that show how and under what conditions farmer organizations are able to manage to increase their influence over chain governance, that is, over the actual definition of the commercial conditions under which they will sell their products (e.g. price, volume, packaging, labeling, frequency of payments, price discounts and promotions, etc.), or of the characteristics (quality specifications) of the product itself.


6. Evidence suggests that small farmers" organizations that have accessed dynamic, restructured markets always require subsidies or grants to sustain their activities. This raises questions about the costs of promoting market inclusion of smallholder farmers. We welcome studies that demonstrate full transition from external intervention to independence from external support.


7. It is generally assumed that inclusion and exclusion within dynamic markets define the difference between ‘winners" and ‘losers" (respectively). But there is no clear evidence to support this view. We welcome studies that show what the costs and benefits are of market exclusion as compared to market inclusion.


8. We welcome studies about policy innovations (laws, policies, strategies, targeted investments) in the public or private sectors that have led to a favorable environment which enabled small-scale producers and small and medium scale processors to be included in dynamic markets.


9. We welcome studies that show what the differences are between male and female small-scale producers in their ability to link with dynamic markets, and on how farmers" organizations relate to gender issues in their efforts to link producers to markets.

The empirical case studies are expected to be based on significant fieldwork activities such as interviews with supply chain actors, workshops and surveys with farmers. A background document is available on the website which provides a framework for the case studies. Reporting will be in the form of a paper of

8,000 words, following a standard format. There is a budget available of UK £ 8,000 per case study. We aim to finance 12 empirical case studies in total.

2.2 Desk studies

We also welcome proposals for short desk studies of policy innovations (laws, policies, strategies, targeted investments) in the public or private sectors that have led to a favorable environment for enhanced market participation by small-scale producers and small and medium scale processors.

There are already many analyses available of policies aimed at capacity building of producers, hence, we are more interested in policies aimed at improving the market conditions that make it possible for small-scale farmers to access dynamic and restructured markets. Examples of innovative policies may include competition policy, codes of conduct, innovative financial products, grades and standards policies, Good Agricultural Practices policies, zoning laws and planning ordinances, support to contract negotiation and management, laws and regulations governing the food wholesale or retail sector, business services including quality assurance/certification, taxation, fair-trade guidelines, industry ombudsman, franchise laws, etc.

The paper should address the situation before the policy innovation, the key champions leading (or factors contributing to) the policy innovation, a description of the policy (this may include the translation of the law or regulation), the situation after the policy innovation, and an indicative assessment of the costs and benefits of the policy innovation. It should indicate under what enabling conditions the innovation might be able to be replicated. Reporting will be in the form of a paper of 1,500 words, following a standard format. There is a budget available of UK £ 1,500 per desk study. We aim to finance 18 desk studies in total.

3. Procedures, timetable and selection criteria

The deadline for submission of proposals is 26 November . Proposals can be submitted preferably through the Regional Coordinator responsible for your region, or alternatively directly to the Component Leaders (see addresses below). Proposals should follow the format provided below. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the Regional Coordinators and/or the Component Leaders to discuss their ideas for proposals.

E ach proposal will be evaluated independently by two reviewers. The outcomes of the selection procedure will be communicated in the week of 18 December 2006 . The selected research teams will then be instructed and contracted by the Regional Coordinators. The research can start in January 2007 and draft reports are due latest on 30 June 2007 .

The criteria for evaluation of the proposals will be:

A. Eligibility criteria (classification in Yes/No):

1. Does the proposal fall within the objectives and field of interest of the Regoverning Markets Programme?


2. Do we have sufficient information to evaluate the proposal?

B. Merit criteria (classification in Excellent/Good/Average/Insufficient):

1. The innovation. The case study must be innovative, offer the potential to be replicated, and offer good opportunities for learning. We encourage case studies of innovations that go beyond common practice, showing unexplored paths and new ways forward. Yet at the same time the case
   should result in insights and lessons that are of interest elsewhere. A good balance herein is an essential criterion for selection. Furthermore, the experience must be mature enough to have produced tangible results, thus providing a good opportunity for learning.


2. Links to the public sector, private sector and civil society. The main thrust of the Regoverning Markets programme is to influence public or private policy change. Hence we encourage case study proposals where there is proven interest and involvement by stakeholders from the public sector, private sector or civil society.


3. Quality of the research team. A key criterion for selection is the research team"s familiarity with the thematic field of Regoverning Markets –i.e. market inclusion of small-scale farmers– and proven excellence in conducting high-quality case studies.

C. Variability:

• A further consideration in the selection of the case analysis proposals will be variability. We need case studies that offer thematic and geographical variety. This criterion cannot be applied to individual proposals, but it will guide the final selection of the cases that scored best on the merit criteria.

4. Format for proposals

Proposals for empirical case studies should address the following questions in 3 pages:

• What was the situation before the innovation?


• What is the innovation?


• What is the situation after the innovation?


• Why is this relevant for policy (public and private)?

Annexed to the proposal we need the resume(s) of the person(s) who will implement the study, and a brief description of the proposed fieldwork activities.

Proposals for desk studies should address the following questions in 1 page:

• What was the situation before the policy innovation?


• What is the policy innovation?


• What is the situation after the policy innovation?

Annexed to the proposal we need the resume(s) of the person(s) who will implement the study.

5. Contact details

Regional coordinators

China	Jikun Huang, CCAP, jkhuang.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cn
Southeast Asia	Larry Digal, UP Mindanao , larryd927@yahoo.com
South Asia	Abid Suleri, SDPI, suleri@sdpi.org
East Africa	James Nyoro, Tegemeo Institute, jnyoro@tegemeo.org
South Africa	Andre Louw, University of Pretoria , andre.louw@up.ac.za
North & West Africa	Aziz Sbai, TARGA, a.sbai@iav.ac.ma
Latin America	Julio Berdegué, RIMISP, jberdegue@rimisp.org
Central & Eastern Europe	Csaba Csabi, Corvinus University, csaba.csaki@uni-corvinus.hu
Middle East	Ali Koc, Akdeniz University, alikoc@akdeniz.edu.tr

Component leaders

• Julio Berdegué, RIMISP, jberdegue@rimisp.org


• Estelle Bienabe , CIRAD, estelle.bienabe@cirad.fr


• Lucian Peppelenbos, KIT, l.peppelenbos@kit.nl