Improving Sustainability, Productivity, and Market Access for Smallholder Sugarcane Farmers

Improving sustainability, productivity and market access for smallholder sugarcane farmers A COLLECTION OF THE 8 WINNING ESSAYS OF THE IFAMA 2020 INTERNATIONAL ESSAY CHALLENGE

i

Improving sustainability, productivity and market access for smallholder sugarcane farmers A COLLECTION OF THE 8 WINNING ESSAYS OF THE IFAMA 2020 INTERNATIONAL ESSAY CHALLENGE

iii

The eight essays included in this publication are the top winners in the IFAMA 2020 Food for the Future World Conference International Student Essay Competition. We have included the top two winners of each category.

More information about the challenge, including the countries represented, is available on our website at www.ifama.org/international-essay-competition.

Improving sustainability, productivity and market access for smallholder sugarcane farmers A COLLECTION OF THE 8 WINNING ESSAYS OF THE IFAMA 2020 INTERNATIONAL ESSAY CHALLENGE

Graduate | Early career professional | TEAM 1st Place...........................................................................................................................................................2 Carien Denner, Michelle Marais, Andries Strauss, and Alina Ntsiapane University of the Free State, Republic of South Africa 2nd Place........................................................................................................................................................10 Maria Noriza Q. Herrera, Phoebe B. Ricarte University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), Philippines Graduate | INDIVIDUAL 1st Place.........................................................................................................................................................18 John Baptist W. Kabo-Bah University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana 2nd Place........................................................................................................................................................30 Awodele Stephen Olajide University of Saskatchewan, Canada Undergraduate | TEAM 1st Place.........................................................................................................................................................38 Liuyue Yang, Junyi Jiang University of Tasmania, Australia 2nd Place........................................................................................................................................................46 Timothy Simic and Yin Stan Cheung University of Sydney, Australia Undergraduate | INDIVIDUAL 1st Place.........................................................................................................................................................58 Allan Soo University of Technology Sydney, Australia 2nd Place........................................................................................................................................................70 Ruchir Mathur Birla Institute of Technology and Science, India

1

Michelle Marais | Carien Denner | Andries Strauss | Alina Ntsiapane University of the Free State, Republic of South Africa (click to play video)

Graduate & Early Career Professional TEAM Category 1st Place

Food for the Future: How can the sustainability, productivity and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers be improved?

“Sawubona IFAMA” is a warm welcome from Nandi, a small-scale sugarcane farmer from Kwazulu Natal in South Africa. Sawubona is a Zulu greeting that stretches beyond “hello”, it means “I see you”. It is an acknowledgement, an admiration for potential and a form of mutual respect which lays the foundation for a fruitful relationship (Mamabalo, 2019). When we recognize one another on the deeper level that this greeting encourages, it is far more likely that we will have insight into one another’s lives. It means we take the time to comprehend each other’s strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities. Technological innovation has enabled globalization and we are now able to evaluate problems and opportunities from a broader and deeper perspective. Broader issues such as population growth placing an increasing pressure on global food security are becoming increasingly urgent. Food security is fully reliant on the wellbeing of the agricultural sector, and the sector itself is a platform for economic growth (Norton, et al., 2009). Within many developing countries, such as South Africa, the development of small-scale farmers is cardinal to many strategies that aim for improved food security and economic growth.

The focus is oftentimes on the broad strategies and one of the most important variables in the problem is somewhat neglected- the people. We need a “Sawubona” approach that places the farmer at the center and notices their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to develop solutions from the ground up.

The South African context In South Africa it has been reported that 94.8% of sugarcane farmers are small-scale farmers (SASRI, 2020).

When approaching challenges such as improving the sustainability, productivity and market-access of these farmers, it is essential to understand the circumstances these farmers are operating in. Approximately 68% of these farming families have 7 or more members (Ia & Dlamini, 2012). Urbanization results in most of the youth moving to urban areas in search of better employment and education opportunities while the elders are left behind to farm. These farmers have low levels of education and poor access to training and information. Smallscale sugarcane farmers in South Africa farm on communal land. These farmers do not have a basis for collateral which is an obstacle for them in acquiring finances required for inputs and infrastructure.

3

The way forward Improving the sustainability, productivity and market access of small-scale sugarcane farmers is an enormous undertaking, but it remains one that will have a positive impact at many levels. Insight into the socio-economic challenges that these farmers face provides a unique perspective on navigating the way forward with smallscale farmers and improving their contribution to the industry. There is a well-known African proverb that says “Only once you have carried the water, do you learn to appreciate every drop� (De Ley, 2019). We need to understand the problem from a personal perspective. We need to comprehend the fundamental problems these small-scale farmers are facing. We need insight into the routes travelled with a bucket to collect drinking water, before we can strategize long-term socio-economic growth.

The environments of the farmer The socio-economic challenges that small-scale sugarcane farmers are facing can be categorized into various levels of their micro and macro environments. The micro level speaking to the person and their families. This is

Figure 1: The micro and macro environments of small-scale farmers (Source: Own)

where many of the most influential problems are often overlooked. The community level is the immediate support system such as mentors and business partners. Without a thorough understanding of the personal level, the intervention initiated at the community level is easily misaligned with the core problems which ultimately result in poor resource allocation. The broader community refers to the farmer’s associations which are often-

University of the Free State, South Africa

times responsible for training, negotiation with government, marketing and industry standards, and distribution of information. The perspective these associations have is key to bridging the gap between the government and the farmers. The government is responsible for policy, regulation and involvement in investment activities.

The government aims for economic growth and solutions to problems such as food insecurity. These objectives will be met more effectively when the problems are mitigated from the personal level. This is challenging the status quo by turning the hierarchical approach upside down.

The family level At the family level, the farmer’s first priorities are explained by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 2013).

Many small-scale sugarcane farmers are facing obstacles at the basic level of their most personal needs.

According to SASA (2011), many of these farmers are confronted with household food insecurity, poverty, unemployment, and health concerns (Lynn, 1996) (Norton, et al., 2009). Having large families increases the responsibility of the farmers to satisfy their most basic needs. Maslow indicates that the psychological and self-fulfillment needs follow only once the basic needs are met (Maslow, 2013) (Besley, 1994). Farmer’s livelihoods need to first be improved before they will be able to effectively engage in long-term improvement of their enterprises which requires a higher level of psychological wellbeing.

Small-scale farmers often lack knowledge and experience which hinders their progress in managing profitable enterprises. Mentorship, training and funding programs have been implemented at a community level in South African sugar-cane farmer’s communities, but have only shown success in instances where the basic personal needs were prioritized over production training (Ia & Dlamini, 2012). Small-scale farmers typically do not have access to large portions of land or infrastructure, which limits their access to important factors of production such as credit facilities (Lynn, 1996). These problems at broader levels can only be combated once these farmers are no longer focused solely on survival.

When looking at the various environments in which small-scale farmers function, it is important to bear in mind that all these levels influence one another. Mitigating the personal issues these farmers face allows for the role-players in the external environments to be more effective in their efforts to assist these farmers and in the broader objectives such as food security and economic growth.

The importance of the private sector at the community level “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” This is another African proverb that highlights the importance of the community level. The community and the relationships therein have an extensive influence on the broad objectives such as economic growth as it is personal connection driven by both the socio and economic benefits that can be derived from fruitful relationships. It is at the community level where mentorship programs are introduced. Mentorship programs have been introduced in small-scale farming communities

5

across Africa for several decades (Mbonyane & Ladzini, 2011). It has been found that projects that are initiated by the private sector are more effective than those initiated by government in a South African context. Some research suggests that this is because the government has limited resources to allocate to extension services (Lynn, 1996) (Mbonyane & Ladzini, 2011). However, when changing the perspective to the “upside-down hierarchy/Sawubona” approach we are suggesting, it is likely that the reason government projects show lower success rates is due to the focus being solely on the long and short-term economic strategies, whereas the private initiatives delve more into the personal-level issues before attempting the broader problems (Sernick, 2019) (National Wool Growers Association, 2020) (Lynn, 1996) (SASA , 2011). In projects where initiatives prioritized the basic needs of the farmers such as healthcare, education and poverty- the socio and economic objectives were more effectively met (Ia & Dlamini, 2012) (Sernick, 2020). It is at this level where production interventions can take place.

The farmer’s environments within the value chain The micro and macro environments in which farmers find themselves fit directly into the value chain.

Figure 2: The farmer’s environment and the value chain. Source: Own

Incentivising the private sector to become involved in the development of small-scale farmers comes with a set of obstacles. However, if the emphasis is placed on the farmer, the entire value-chain can benefit. If the private sector becomes invested in these small-scale farmers, production can be increased, networks and relationships between role-players in the value chain can be established which will allow the industry to grow. If the farmers find themselves in a supportive micro-environment, it will improve their participation at macro-levels in the long run. The private sector is established and successful in the industry. They can provide advice to farmers daily using mobile technology. Assistance from the private sector in skills such as identifying the soils with the most cost-benefit potential can improve production in the short run, which will motivate both the farmers University of the Free State, South Africa

and the private sector to continue with the developmental processes in the long run. Incentivising the private sector to invest resources in these small-scale farmers will improve their infrastructure, management practices and production capacity as the private sector becomes more driven to help them succeed. The suppliers of inputs, service renders, mills and manufacturers will benefit from increased production and profitability of the small-scale farmers and networks between role-players in the value chain can be strengthened. Industry growth results in increased employment which aligns with governmental strategies and goals.

Costs and the government The bridge that needs to be built in the overall objective of improving the sustainability, productivity and market access of communal sugarcane farmers lies between the farming communities and the government. Governments in developing countries allocate many resources towards the development of small-scale farmers and farmers associations. With a thorough understanding of the foundational obstacles that are hindering the success of many initiatives, associations and government can cooperate in establishing a value-chain financing system which could potentially mitigate many of these obstacles. Value-chain financing (VCF) is defined as “Finance products and services that flow to or through any point in a value chain that increase actors’ returns and the growth and competitiveness of the chain.” (Miller & Jones, 2010). When the private sector is involved within the personal and community levels, communication flow between farmers and the association and government levels will be improved. Funding strategies can change to provide incentives to the private sector to increase their interest in the development of small-scale sugarcane farmers. When government funding is allocated in such a way as to be incentives to the private sector the investment risk is lowered. The private-public partnership is essential in achieving long and short-term goals.

Costs to implement this scheme will be high. A regulatory system and body will need to be established to manage the allocation of resources and to introduce and maintain a high ethical standard. An application and selection process will need to be developed. Auditing and progress monitoring of these resources will need to be in place. There will be a need to employ more specialists to mentor and assist these small-scale farmers, manage the funding, and to process the increased yields. Resources such as mobile devices and applications will need to be made available to farmers. Legal costs associated with contracts in labour, product delivery, service rendering and financial agreements must be accounted for. These regulatory and legal processes are expensive, but essential in mitigating the risk of socio-political unrest which is a considerable social cost.

The way forward Problems are always easier to solve in theory. Improving the sustainability, productivity and market-access of small-scale sugarcane farmers is an important steppingstone to reaching long-term developmental goals. The common approach is the “top down” approach. Where government initiatives are implemented within farm-

7

ing communities. Problems such as lack of access to credit, high financial risk and low success rates can be approached from a new perspective. The “Sawubona� approach is a personal-perspective approach that can be applied globally in a range of different contexts. Solving broader problems is dependent on solving personal problems first. Governments can benefit from involving and incentivising the private sector to gain access to resources such as production skills, sound management, knowledge and networking. None of these skills can be developed without a personal relationship. The strategies need to take some new perspectives into consideration. Policy makers need insight of carrying a bucket of water, to optimally place a well in the village. A proposal is a good place to start.

Bibliography Besley, T., 1994. How do market failures justify interventions in rural credit markets? World Bank Research Observer, 9(1), pp. 24-47.

De Ley, G., 2019. The Book of African Proverbs: A collection of timeless wisdom, wit, sayings & advice. 1st ed. s.l.:Hatherleigh Press.

Ia, S. & Dlamini, C., 2012. The concept of sustainable sugarcane production: global and South African perceptions.

African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(31), pp. 4337-4343.

Lynn, M., 1996. Transforming developing agriculture: establishing a basis for growth. Agrekon, 35(10), pp. 188-192.

Mamabalo, R., 2019. Sawubona: We See You. [Online] Available at: https://rochemamabolo.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/sawubona-we-see-you-2/ [Accessed 8 August 2020].

Maslow, A. H., 2013. Heirarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation. 3rd ed. New York : Sublime Books.

Mbonyane, B. & Ladzini, W., 2011. Factors that hinder the growth of small businesses in South African townships.

European Business Review, 23(6), pp. 550-560.

Miller, C. & Jones, L., 2010. Agricultural Value Chain Finance. 1st ed. Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing.

National Wool Growers Association, 2020. Wool Farmer. s.l.:Agri Connect (Pty) Ltd. Norton, G., Alwang, J. & Masters, W., 2009. Economics of Agricultural Development. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Obi, A., Van Schalkwyk, H. & van Tilburg, A., 2012. Market access, poverty alleviation and socio-economic sustainability in South Africa. In: Unlocking markets to smallholders. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers , pp. 13-33.

SASA, 2011. South African sugar industry and sustainable development. [Online] Available at: http://www.sugarindustrydev.co.za [Accessed 12 August 2020].

Sernick, 2019. Developing emerging farmers in South Africa. Bloemfontein, Mamre.

Sernick, 2020. Emerging Farmers. [Online] Available at: https://www.sernick.co.za/emerging-farmers/about/ [Accessed 12 Septemeber 2020].

Sifundza, S., 2019. Contract farming and access to formal credit in South Africa: A case of small-scale sugarcane growers in the Felixton Mill area of Kwazulu-Natal. Pretoria: University of Pretoria .

University of the Free State, South Africa

9

Maria Noriza Q. Herrera | Phoebe B. Ricarte University of the Philippines Los BaĂąos (UPLB), Philippines (click to play video)

Graduate & Early Career Professional TEAM Category 2nd Place

Food for the Future Sugarcane, Saccharum officinarum is an important global crop due to its economic contribution. The top 5 sugarcane producers worldwide are India, Brazil, Europe, Thailand and China. In the Philippines, sugarcane covers a total land area of 423,000 hectares with an estimated yield of 2.07M mt in 2018. About 80% of land covers 5 hectares or less. The Philippines ranks 11th in terms of sugarcane production worldwide. Sugarcane is planted to 25 provinces and 12 regions in the Philippines with Negros in Visayas island contributing majority (73%) to total country production. At present, there are about 30 Mill Districts (MDs); 11 in Negros Occidental, 2 in Negros Oriental, 7 in Luzon island, 4 in Panay, 3 in Eastern/Central Visayas and 3 in Mindanao. The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), the policy-making body under the Department of Agriculture created MDDCs (Mill District Development Committees) to oversee and implement programs and projects for sugarcane nationwide. About 65,000 Filipino farmers depend on the sugarcane production. Moreover, 11% of farmers own 5-10 hectares of land and 11% own 10-50 hectares; only 3% are owners of 50-100 hectares of land.

Sugarcane proves to be a viable crop in the Philippines contributing Php 87B (USD $1.74B) to the Philippine economy for sales of sugar, molasses and bioethanol, from tolling fees on sugar refining and VAT (value-added tax) on refined sugar. They also brought in US$ 111.76M from sugar exports to the US and other countries globally. Additionally, it was estimated that around 10% of bioethanol were derived from sugarcane and molasses as a response to sustainable and green energy (SRA, 2015).

The sugarcane industry is beset with various problems. The main challenge faced by the industry is its low productivity. The average yield is at 60 tons cane per hectare compared to Thailand averaging 75 tons cane per hectare. It was reported that the highest yield of sugarcane in the Philippines is in Negros Island, ranging from 62 to 73 tons cane per hectare. Meanwhile, the lowest yield ranged from 30 to 42 tons cane per hectare as reported in Camarines Sur, Pampanga, Tarlac, Davao and Cagayan.

There is a need for strategic interventions to address the low productivity. Historically, the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program- CARP (Republic Act 6657) in 1988 exacerbated the dire performance of the crop. There was a serious drop in productivity in the second half of the 1980s, which coincided

11

with the implementation of the CARP. The decrease in productivity can be attributed to the loss of economies of scale. The agrarian reform 2 beneficiaries (ARBs) who are the main recipients of CARP sell their land due to lack of financial capital to do farming. Other land areas are also converted to industrial use.

The reality of sugarcane production in the Philippines indicated that small farms are less productive compared to medium-sized and large farms. Small sugarcane farms are less viable due to lack of economies of scale, financial incapability to source out inputs such as high-yielding planting materials and fertilizer and poor farm practices. There is also anecdotal evidence that the sugarcane industry is facing labor scarcity due to migration of workers (sakadas) to urban areas (SRA, 2015).

Despite the challenges being faced by the Philippine sugarcane industry, prospects are still possible. Current initiatives of the Philippine government through the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) attempt to keep the sugarcane industry afloat. The subsequent section lists down the current initiative and potential solution to help the small sugarcane farmers. At the same time address the sustainability of production and market for the Philippine sugarcane. ● Sugarcane Blockfarming (SBF) to benefit small farmers and achieve economies of scale It was in 2011 when the concept of “sugarcane blockfarming (SBF)” was introduced by the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), the policy-making body for sugarcane which is under the Department of Agriculture (DA). The objectives of block-farming are the following: provide small sugarcane farmers with technical, infrastructure and marketing support by consolidating small farms to achieve economies of scale; improve the farm productivity of small farms through block farming and to reduce cost of production and provide a sustainable income for small sugarcane farmers.

At that time, Administrator Ma. Regina Bautista-Martin thought of “SBF” for the benefit of small farmers as a preparation for the 5% reduction of sugar tariff in 2015. Since the Philippines is dominated (75%) by small sugarcane farmers, block farming was conceptualized. The goal is to consolidate small farms for ease of logistical, financial and marketing support. The idea is to manage minimum “block farms” covering an area of at least 30 hectares. Studies showed that economies of scale for sugarcane in the Philippines can be achieved with a minimum of 30 hectares of land. This set-up gives landowners a share in profits for sugarcane production through consolidation and professional management of contiguous farms. The initiative was a joint effort of 3 government agencies: Department of Agriculture and Department (DA), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

From 2012-2014, twenty eight (28) block farms were operationalized. The implementation started with 4 block farms in Balayan, Batangas. Results showed that block farms increased in sugarcane yield relative to prior participation in the program. Intended beneficiaries of the block farming are those whose farm size is five hectares or less, both for the ARBs (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries) and non-ARBs. University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

Outputs of the initiative include the rehabilitation of 1,500 hectares of block farms in 50 farms nationwide and training 1,500 block farm enrollees. About 50 nurseries were established for high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of sugarcane. It was foreseen that yield per hectare of sugarcane in the country can go as high as 100 tons.

This is premised with the kind of sugarcane variety used, right timing of planting and harvesting, and optimum amount of fertilizer and irrigation. Ultimately, the block farming does not only uplift the life of farmers but also responding to the balanced fertilization for the natural environment and at the same time create profitable solutions by increasing the yield of the farm. � Implementation of “blockchain technology� to complement SBF for supply chain management of sugarcane in the Philippines

Figure 1. Proposed sugarcane supply chain management in the Philippines incorporating sugarcane blockfarming (SBF), blockchain technology and associated technologies and innovations Adopted from: Boldu, Fonts and Kalimaris, 2019.

The use of technology should always be a means to an end. Sugarcane Blockfarming (SBF) can be complemented by the blockchain technology and associated innovations (Figure 1). With blockchain technology, data can be traced via cryptographic fingerprint along the physical movement of the product from farm to table. This can be possible through immutable productprocess link. Tracing along the chain can be aided by: QR codes, advanced radio frequency identification (RFID), chips in the supply chain, new field communication (NFC) agriculture technology and crypto-anchor technology.

However, the implementation of the blockchain technology might potentially negatively affect the existing quedan system since the technology reduces or even eliminates the role of the middlemen in the supply chain.

Through the quedan system, the Sugar Regulatory Administration allocates a portion of sugar to various markets including the United States (US), for domestic consumption, for reserves and for export to countries other than the US. The system allowed sugar distribution to the US since the 1930s.

13

Nevertheless, blockchain technology will be useful at each stage in the supply chain of sugarcane, The technology provides a holistic and integrative solution from the input to production, processing, logistics and consumers (domestic and export) with support from the government, non-government, cooperatives and private agencies. SRA shall serve as the repository of all information from the field and while the products at each levels are in transit.

Input sector Under the block farming program of SRA, there are about 50 sugarcane nurseries to be established. Each will house high yielding varieties. Although there are plenty of sugarcane varieties, only 15 varieties are recommended by SRA. Along with the input sector is strong Research and Development (R and D) to preempt common diseases of sugarcane that include mosaic, ratoon stunting, yellow leaf syndrome and leaf scald. For the stakeholders under the input sector, RFID and PKI (public key infrastructure) will be needed. Blockchain technology will take place through a general ledger accessed by nursery players and cooperative or ARBOs participating in sugarcane production. A good management information system (MIS)/database management shall consolidate the information from nurseries in various locations in the Philippines.

Production sector Moreover, PKI will be useful to trace where the planting materials are sourced and to the farms where they will be brought. Small farmers can benefit by having technical assistance from field experts. These field experts can be called “sugarcane doctors” which will be housed in regional offices of SRA. The sugarcane doctors along with the small farmers shall monitor the crop’s performance from planting to harvesting. If financial resources permit, precise agriculture (PA) can be applied aided by drone technology. Other agricultural technologies such as robotics and internet of things (IoT) shall aid the producers; may they be cooperatives, ARBOs or individuals. In the absence of modern technology for sugarcane production, designated “sugarcane doctors” can advise the farmers of the right amount of fertilizer and pesticide to be used at the right time. In addition, at the farm level, enhanced competitiveness can be done with the utilization of Phil- Lidar (Philippine Light Detection Ranging). Phil-Lidar is a dream project that yielded the natural resource inventory in the Philippines.

Phil-Lidar can be specifically useful for sugarcane in identifying suitable areas to expand the production. A nutrient management application specific for sugarcane will be developed. Hence, the use of SMS technology will also be incorporated where farmers can consult via SMS regarding the nutrient management of sugarcane and to reduce the incidence of pests and diseases. Lastly, the best cultural management for sugarcane production shall be recommended. SBF is complemented by agricultural technologies for enhanced food security and traceability. In addition, smallholder farmers through cooperatives and/or associations can benefit through profit sharing agreement once the crop is harvested.

University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

Processing sector After harvest, coded sugarcane is brought to processing plants. Timing is of great importance as it affects the quality of juice thereby affecting the by-products that shall be produced. Thus, the nucleus type of farm setup is currently adopted. It will be ensured that the processing plants follow the good manufacturing practices (GMP). At present, utilization rate of sugarcane in the country ranges from 30 to 80% with the highest rate in Negros. The low utilization rate is explained by the lack of the required volume and quality raw materials in other areas in the Philippines.

Logistics The by-products of sugarcane- raw sugar, refined sugar, molasses (for bioethanol) and bagasse (for power generation) are transported via sea or land. Blockchain technology creates protection at all stages through traceability.

Consumers The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) is in charge of monitoring the outputs from the milling districts.

SRA also decides how much percentage will go to the domestic or export market but majority will still go to the former. Through blockchain technology, the consumers are assured of the origin of the products they are consuming. Thus, ensuring food safety, good quality and traceability.

Support sector Lastly, the support sector from the government, non-government and private sectors will have access to credible information within the chain. Hence, timely and reliable actions/ strategies are crafted. The participants in the support sector include the following: Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), PHILSURIN, PHILSUCOR, Larec, DOST, BIOTECH, Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), LandBank of the Philippines (LBP), Cooperatives, Industry Associations among others.

References: Boldu,F.X.P, Fonts, A. and Kamilaris, A. 2019. The Rise of Blockchain Technology in Agriculture and Food Supply Chains. Research Centre on Interactive Media, Smart Systems and Emerging Technologies (RISE), Nicosia,Cyprus.

Retrieved Oct 20, 2020 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334805119_The_Rise_ofvBlockchain_Technology_in_Agriculture_and_Food_Supply_Chains Intellias. 2020. How to Apply Blockchain for Supply chain in Agriculture. Retrieved September 23, 2020 from https:// www.intellias.com/how-to-apply-the-blockchain-to-agriculturalsupply-chains-while-avoiding-embarrassing-mistakes/

15

Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA). 2015. Sugarcane Roadmap 2020. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https:// www.sra.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SUGARCANEROADMAP-2020_final_03022016.pdf Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA). 2015. The Philippine Sugarcane Industry: Challenges and Opportunities. Retrieved September 15, 2020 from https://www.sra.gov.ph/thephilippine-sugarcane-industry-challenges-and-opportunities/ University of Asia and the Pacific-Center for Food and Agribusiness. 2012. Benchmarking Philippine Sugar Industry with Thailand’s: A Supply/Value Chain Approach. Pasig, Metro Manila

University of the Philippines Los BaĂąos, Philippines

17

John Baptist W. Kabo-Bah University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana (click to play video)

Graduate INDIVIDUAL Category 1st Place

Food for the Future: How can the sustainability, productivity and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers be improved?

Abstract Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in Ghana and around the world is considered an important crop, due to its increasing use by the growing population. Smallholder farmers in Ghana are currently at the crossroads for sugarcane production and adversely affect stakeholders and ecosystems. The situation has caused the government sugar import bill at approx. USD200 million annually. To curb this, the government reconstructed the Komenda Sugar Factory in 2016. Notwithstanding the factory’s good intentions to provide a market place for smallholder farmers, it was suddenly shut down just after its test run due to feedstock deficits, however, farmers too speculated prices offered were unfair. Ever since sugarcane production in the country has been heavily affected and will continue with the frequency intensity amidst of climate change. Based on this, the paper suggests a Sugarcane Food Forest Programme(SFFP) that combines the idea of food forest concept and block farming to redefine sugar production in pursuit to increase the income of smallholder farmers, promote sustainable sugarcane production by having key actors involved. The programme builds farmers’ capacity on sustainable approaches; such as green manuring through intercropping, efficient sourcing, and market access while leveraging on the existing e-services and Government sugar policies. SFFP would contribute to social, economic, and environmental impacts. Therefore, SFFP seeks to bridge gaps in hindering agriculture industry progress.

Acronyms 1D1F...........One Dam, One Factory

PFJ.............Planting for Food and Jobs

EXIM...........Export and Import Bank

SDGs..........Sustainable Development Goals

FAO............Food and Agriculture Organization

SFFP..........Sugarcane Food Forest Programme

ISO.............International Sugarcane Organization

UN..............United Nations

KSF............Komenda Sugar Factory

USD............United States Dollar

NGOs..........Non-Governmental Organizations

19

Introduction Sugar is a well-known food commodity widely used for domestic/industrial purposes in terms of food, feed, fuel, etc. Notably, sugarcane accounts for approximately 80% of global production (Yawson et al., 2018). Sugar production in 2016 was predicted at 169 million metric tonnes (Yawson et al., 2018) and subsequently was envisaged at 179.64 million metric tonnes for 2017/2018 (Statista, 2018). Commendably, Brazil is the lead sugar producer among the 10 top producers1 and exporters with 39.15 million tonnes (Yawson et al., 2018; ISO, 2018) and 28.15 million metric tonnes (Statista, 2018) respectively. Despite efforts made by few countries in Africa to export small quantities of sugar, the continent remains the net importer of sugar. In October 2018 and September 2019, world sugar production was anticipated to decline in Brazil, with consumption rise to 176.1 million tonnes in 2018/19 especially in Africa, Central America, the Caribbean and Asia (FAO, 2020; FAO, 2019).

Ghana sugar perspective Sugarcane production started in the 1960s just after Ghana gained independence in 1957. Asutsuare and Komenda of Cape Coast were noted for sugarcane farming and later Volta and Eastern Regions joined the league. The sugar factories at Komenda and Asutsuare in the 1960s were established to drive the industrialization of sugarcane and support increasing domestic demand. Ghana recorded its highest production in 1977 at 270,000 tonnes (Figure 2) which led to a drop in sugar imports( Figure 2). Regrettably, in the 1980’s, the nation experienced a drastic reduction in sugarcane production (Figure 2), and the story never changed till date.

Both factories operated below capacity and coupled with mismanagement2, high cost of production, water and energy shortages among others force a shutdown for ages. Although Asutsuare Factory, currently is turn into a waste recycling yard, the government is still pursuing intervention to resuscitate the Komenda Factory. In 2016, the government of Ghana with support from the EXIM Bank of India pump USD 35 million to revive the idling Komenda Sugar Factory, unfortunately for farmers the factory only operated briefly due to feedstocks deficits and lack of an irrigation component. (Frimpong Boamah & Sumberg, 2019). Also, a satellite remote sensing study, indicated the factory could only source 7% of sugarcane, which does not guarantee its operations at half the capacity (Yawson et al., 2018). Additionally, farmers too speculated the factory price offered (GHS 60 approx. USD 10) per tonne were unfair and unattractive. Let’s be realistic, how can a farmer whose livelihood solely depends on sugarcane farming, survive on a GHC 60 budget? Likewise, other initiatives were developed to enhance traction of the sugar industry but failed to progress (Appendix 1).

1

Top 10 global sugar producers include: Brazil, India, Thailand, China, the US, Mexico, Russia, Pakistan, France, Australia.

2

Similarly, in Mozambique, two sugar mills closed in 2019 due to challenges attributed to financial distress due to mismanagement of the factories. https://allafrica.com/stories/201907120761.html

3

Nigeria, Egypt, Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and South Africa

University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana

Ghana remains the lowest sugarcane producing country among other African countries3 (Figure 3). And it is observed problems revolves in the industry due to rooted information asymmetry and lack of policy learning. Therefore, addressing these challenges is keen to revamp job creation, import substitution4 and improve livelihoods etc.

Figure 2: Ghana sugar production and yield (1961-2015)

Figure 3: Sugarcane production

4

Business news report indicated the Government of Ghana spent annually USD 2 million to import sugar. https://www. ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Ghana-spends-2m-to-import-sugar-444650

21

Figure 3: Sugarcane production

Sugarcane Food Forest Programme (SFFP) SFFP is an integrated approach that combines food forest concept with block farming5 as a strategy to increase sugarcane farming and farmers’ benefits by helping farmers use fewer inputs (water, seeds etc) and change management practices for soil nutrients, plants, water while closing information gap. Beneficiary households establish sugarcane food forest which allows farmers to dedicate 60% of land for high-density sugarcane production and 40% for low-density and intercropping legumes crops like potato, cowpea, etc.

Sugarcane full canopy development often takes 3-5 months and farmers can utilize this opportunity to plant short duration crops like cowpea to earn extra income and preserve soil moisture (Islam & Islam, 2018). SFFP consolidates beneficiaries’ farms into a block and encourages community group formation with elected executives to supersede information dissemination, input access, monitoring and sourcing. Established groups become farmer-to-farmer learning platform and labour source for community established nursery6 to provide real-time access to resources. Under the programme, land and labour are provided by households, KSF provides market and SFFP secretariat acts as a liaison between farmers, factory and partners to bridge information asymmetry. SFFP also promote a farmer-to-farmer training (Soil Doctors Programme7) by training experienced sugarcane farmers and distributing soil testing kits to support the education of other farmers on how to sustainably

5

Block farming involves consolidating small portions of productive landscapes into 30-50 ha lands to take the form of plantation or large scale production.

6

Nursery would be owned and managed by the community group. Seedlings in the nursery are grown using (bud chips) tiny tissues cut from canes place into biodegradable tray which helps in reducing cost of production.

7

The Global Soil Doctors Programme was developed by the Global Soil Partnership(GSP) as a mandate to improve soil governance in order to safeguard agriculture productions and food security.

University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana

improve the health of soils to boost yields (FAO, 2020a). The irrefutable evidence of Global Soil Doctors Programme in Thailand, which benefited thousands of farmers shows that it can be a self-sufficient system (FAO, 2016) in Ghana. During maturity, the KSF staff visit farms to harvest sugarcane and farmers paid. An estimated amount of USD 60,123 is needed to implement its first phase (Appendix 2) and activity plan (Appendix 3).

23

Justification of the SFFP SFFP is seen as a win-win for all since, forest-based approaches are integral in addressing climate change and support society with numerous benefits (Anderegg et al., 2020) and food forest increase biodiversity to boost ecosystem productivity and decreases climate change (WhatOre, 2020). Additionally, Magsalia (farmers’ association) in Philippines practices block farming to double farms’ yields (Department of Agrarian Reform, 2019). Also, Dal Belo Leite et al., 2020 study identified model B as the best alternative than model A, since the former allows intermediation and later increases production cost, monopoly for sugar mills (Figure 4). The model B is highly implemented in Brazil (Orplana, 2013) and Africa; Swaziland (Sikuka, 2019a), Zimbabwe (Sikuka, 2019c), and South Africa (Sikuka, 2019b). Notwithstanding, foreseeable challenges of smallholder farmers buy-in and irrigation, the below proposed short and long term actions would minimize the SFFP hindrance.

Figure 4: Out-grower model for sugarcane production in Mozambique. Source: (Dal Belo Leite et al., 2020)

University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana

Proposed actions Short-term 1. Formation of community out grower-network and community nursery 2. Sugarcane 6-month sustainability campaign7 leveraging on social media: Facebook8.

3. Strengthen local capacity on new farming technology (tissue culture), agronomy practices through Soil Doctor Programme component.

4. Build a partnership model to support sugarcane community award scheme.

Long-term 1. Liaise with the government under One Dam One Factory(1D1F) policy9, and E-service providers to support SFFP with smart drip irrigation facilities and e-services respectively 2. Publishing SFFP progress reports in agriculture newsletters 3. Established strong partnerships to enhance SFFP participation to enhance research and development, sugar policy learning, participation in exhibitions.

Conclusion According to the FAO, sustainability is seen as being profitable without causing harm to nature (natural environment) while maintaining a great impact on the economic, social, and the environment. As such SFFP going concerned would employ research with partner institutions to sustain productivity from paralysis. For instance, the Mozambican government is working voraciously with partners to cushion their sugar factories in the country from collapsing as the sector employs about 31,000 Mozambicans (AllAfrica, 2019). The situation of sugarcane smallholder farmers is going to worsen coupled with rising climate change if nothing is done imagine how the world would be. Interestingly, SFFP can be replicated in other countries as it has the potential to path the way to minimize challenges faced in the sugarcane value chain, and increase smallholder farmers access to new technologies, knowledge, labour, policies. SFFP is the future to ensure a sustainable and productive farming of sugarcane in Ghana. Hence, I would entreat the Government of Ghana and stakeholders in the agricultural space to come on board to support the implementation of SFFP as a viable and prompt action to boost sugarcane productivity, market access and sustainability in Ghana.

7

CSR Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School and Business Fights Poverty report, advocacy helps unleash the unknown, and open up new practices to the target audience and existing leaders in the industry. http://www.sabmiller.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/building-blocks-forsustainable-sugar.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

8

From January to December, 2019, on the ticket as Thought for Food Ambassador, I used facebook to raise awareness about food security and the need for youth to innovate in the sector.

9

One Dam One Factory Policy aim to equip and empower communities to utilize their natural resources to promote economic and national development. The Initiative also makes it possible for business in the country to access financial support from financial institutions and other support services from the government. http://1d1f.gov.gh/about-us/

University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana

25

Appendix Appendix 1: Past sugar initiatives that failed to be realized

10

11

The plant will have an initial capacity of 450,000 tonnes (will be increased later to 650,000 tonnes). Cargill intended to use imported raw materials to feed the sugar processing plant because its own study revealed that “it was not economically viable to venture into sugar-cane plantations locally�. However, both Asutsuare and Komenda factories could be later converted into small-scale units to produce ethanol.

The technology involves a refinery, a sugar mill, bagasse-cum-coal cogeneration power plant and a bioethanol distillery. This was disclosed when Former President-H. E John Dramani Mahama visited Mauritius.

12

The investment will include cultivating sugarcane on 20,000 ha to produce 120,000 tonnes of sugar for export to the EU. It will also include energy and ethanol production.

13

The agenda was focused on food security, import substitution, agro-industrial raw materials and export

14

The policy is justified on the grounds that sugar consumption is projected to increased rapidly in Ghana and the West African sub region, and Ghana’s favourable climatic conditions can potentially boost its sugar exports

Appendix 2: SFFP implementation plan

Appendix 3: Detailed SFFP budget estimates

27

Reference African Business Magazine. (2014). Mauritius: Sugar cane sweetens trade with Ghana. https://africanbusinessmagazine.com/uncategorised/sugar-cane-sweetens-trade-ghana/ AgSri. (2012). Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative Producing “MORE WITH LESS.” www.agsri.com AllAfrica. (2019). Mozambican Government Hoping to Save Sugar Companies. https://allafrica.com/stories/201907120761.html Amanor, K. S. (2013). Expanding Agri-business: China and Brazil in Ghanaian Agriculture. IDS Bulletin, 44(4), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12044 Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Anderson, C. M., Bartuska, A., Ciais, P., Cullenward, D., Field, C. B., Freeman, J., Goetz, S. J., Hicke, J. A., Huntzinger, D., Jackson, R. B., Nickerson, J., Pacala, S., & Randerson, J. T. (2020). Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. In Science (Vol. 368, Issue 6497). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7005 Business and Financial Times. (2017). Mauritius pledges support for sugar production in Ghana. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Mauritius-pledges-support-for-sugarproduction-in-Ghana-500309

University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana

Dal Belo Leite, J. G., Langa, F. M., von Maltitz, G., Lima Verde Leal, M. R., & Barbosa Cortez, L. A. (2020). Sugarcane outgrower schemes model: Friend or foe? A question for smallholder farmers in Mozambique. World Development Perspectives, June, 100232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100232 Department of Agrarian Reform. (2019). Sugar block farming helps double yield. https://www.dar.gov.ph/articles/features/101186 FAO. (2016). Report of the Third Asian Soil Partnership Workshop “Towards a Regional Implementation Plan for Asia.” http://www.fao.org/3/a-br396e.pdf FAO. (2019). Sugar: Market Assessment.

FAO. (2020a). Manual for the implementation of the Global Soil Doctors Programme at the country level - A farmer-to-farmer training programme.

FAO. (2020b). Trade and Markets: Sugar. http://www.fao.org/economic/est/est-commodities/sugar/en/ FAOSTAT. (2014). FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare Frimpong Boamah, E., & Sumberg, J. (2019). The long overhang of bad decisions in agro-industrial development: Sugar and tomato paste in Ghana. Food Policy, 89(June), 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101786 Ghana Times. (2010). Ghana to have new sugar factory. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Ghana-to-have-new-sugar-factory182405 Government of Ghana. (2014). Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda(GSGDA) II: Mediumterm National Development Framework.

Islam, O., & Islam, S. (2018). Sugarcane Cultivation is Highly Profitable with Potato and Mungbean as Successive Intercrops Without Loss in Cane Quality. http://www.imedpub.com/journal-plantbreeding-agriculture/ ISO. (2018). The Sugar Market. https://www.isosugar.org/sugarsector/sugar Jenkins, B., Baptista, P., & Porth, M. (2015). Collabourating for Change in Sugar Production: Building Blocks for Sustainability at Scale. http://www.sabmiller.com/docs/default-source/defaultdocument-library/building-blocks-for-sustainable-sugar.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Modern Ghana. (2015). Trade Ministry engages stakeholders on National Sugar Policy. https://www.modernghana.com/news/626085/trade-ministry-engages-stakeholders-on-nationalsugar-policy.html Modern Ghana. (2018). Dangote To Help Ghana Grow Its Own Sugar. https://www.modernghana.com/news/888999/dangote-to-help-ghana-grow-its-own-sugar.html Orplana. (2013). Procedimentos e normas para o acompanhamento de análise da qualidade da cana-deaçúcar.

Sikuka, W. (2019a). Sugar annual: Eswatini (Formerly Swaziland). USDA Gain Report. http://www.ecga.co.sz/home.html Sikuka, W. (2019b). Sugar annual: Republic of South Africa. USDA Gain Report. www.sars.gov.za Sikuka, W. (2019c). Zimbabwe: Sugar annual. USDA Gain Report. 0–11.

Statista. (2018). Sugar Production Worldwide from 2009/2010 to 2017/2018.

University of Cape Coast. (2017). UCC Develops Right Variety of Sugarcane for Production of Sugar | School of Agriculture. https://agric.ucc.edu.gh/news/ucc-develops-right-variety-sugarcaneproduction-sugar WhatOre. (2020). Food Forest: Growing Food And Creating Biodiversity. https://www.whatsorb.com/agri-gardening/food-forests-promiss-to-grow-food-and-creatingbiodiversity Yawson, D. O., Adu, M. O., & Osei, K. N. (2018). Spatial assessment of sugarcane (Saccharurn spp. L.) production to feed the Komenda Sugar Factory, Ghana. Heliyon, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00903

29

Awodele Stephen Olajide University of Saskatchewan, Canada (click to play video)

Graduate INDIVIDUAL Category 2nd Place

Food for the Future Background: Urgency to address sustainability, productivity, and market access issues for smallholder sugarcane farmers Sugarcane is an important crop known globally for the industrial production of sugar and ethanol. It has also gained its popularity in the energy sector after the discovery that sugarcane biowastes can generate electricity, heat and power, in addition to other uses as yeast, molasses, filter cake, bagasse, and vinasse. Approximately 70% of the world sugar supply has its source from sugarcane. Sugarcane is majorly grown by smallholder farmers in all tropical and subtropical regions of the world, covering about 130 countries with Brazil, India, China, and Thailand accounting for 70% of the world production (FAOSTAT 2019). World sugarcane production has continued to increase since 1960 and has been incorporated into the world economy (FAOSTAT 2019).

However, there is currently inconsistency in sugarcane productivity on a global scale. In the last couple of years for example, while China, some part of sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Africa experienced continuous productivity increase, Brazil, India, and Thailand recorded a significantly lower yield than previous years (de Matos et al. 2020). This production decline can be attributed to drought incidence (de Matos et al. 2020), inflated cost of production and market monopsony. About 90% of farmers involved in sugarcane production are resource-poor (i.e. smallholders) that rely on the income of sugarcane farming as their major source of livelihood (Kidula-Lihasi et al. 2016). Despite the contribution of sugarcane in the global economy, sugarcane farming has not been able to sustain smallholder farmers’ livelihoods, and their lots are still defined by low-level capabilities as well as high levels of food insecurity (Kidula-Lihasi et al. 2016).

The public concern on health consequences of sugar intake and lack of transparency in sugarcane outgrower schemes have negatively impacted the sustainability and market perception on health of sugar industry. Smallholder sugarcane farmers (SSFs hereafter) enter a contract with milling industries to produce under pre-agreed terms and then supply the produce to the miller, which serves as a ready and only source of market for growers, a term known as monopsony. However, smallholders tend to struggle to reap gains from large scale outgrower schemes (Richardson, 2010) and are unaware of their actual contract conditions, loans, sugar prices and costs, and land tenure rights (Leite et al. 2016, 2020). Sugar companies take over harvesting and trans-

31

portation of produce from farm to their factory where the weighing of sugarcane is done and details of weights and quality passed to the farmers at the end of the process. According to African times (2015), the companies not only make exorbitant deductions for services they render, they also delay farmer’s payments for almost a year. This lack of transparency and market monopsony of sugar companies create conflict and distrust that hampers sugarcane sustainability and market accessibility.

Several factors undermine sugarcane productivity. One important factor is the yield decline which is as a result of the loss of productivity of the sugarcane growing-soils under long-term monoculture (Pankhurst et al. 2003). Plant species generally accumulate detrimental soil microorganisms, such as root pathogens and nematodes when grown in the same soil overtime, and this in turn impedes its performance, a phenomenon known as negative plant-soil feedback or soil sickness. Another factor is the lack of irrigation facilities, especially in areas that get too dry during drought (de Matos et al. 2020). Farmers have agreed that sugarcane production is mostly constrained by drought and yield decline (Tena et al. 2016). Therefore, there is an urgent need for a robust action plan that will serve as a global template for addressing the issues of sustainability, productivity and market access of SSFs to improve their livelihoods and promote sugarcane production from local level up to a global scale.

How solving these challenges will benefit smallholder sugarcane farmers Locally adapted management practices can improve the productivity of sugarcane for smallholder farmers.

Firstly, implementation of rotation breaks, especially legume-based will break the cycle of detrimental soil microorganisms and enhance biological nitrogen fixation in the soil for the next growing cycle of sugarcane and will minimize the effect of soil sickness associated with long-term monoculture. Secondly, low-cost minimum tillage and use of residues in production (i.e. vinasse as fertilizer) should be adopted. This model has shown great potential to improve not just productivity and quality, but also profitability in sugarcane farming (Surendran et al.

2016). Thirdly, SSFs should form an active local co-operative group. This will not only enhance their power of collective bargaining, it will also increase their financial capabilities as a group to acquire and use low price tillers and irrigation systems. Finally, the use of improved sugarcane cultivars such as high-yielding, drought tolerant, disease resistant varieties, and cultivars with top genetic ability to recruit beneficial soil microorganisms including indigenous free-living nitrogen fixing bacteria that are well adaptable to specific regions should be encouraged. Adoption of these models will reduce production costs, improve cane yield, quality and soil fertility.

Sustainability of SSFs can be enhanced by improving the relationships between smallholders and sugar mills and targeting other market options such as bioenergy and animal feed industries. Introduction of intermediary e-platforms in sugarcane global value chain (GVC) through a distributed ledger technology such as blockchain with smart contracts will assist SSFs in monitoring costs, market prices and activities, and ensure automation of accurate payment from their industrial buyers in a timely manner. Adoption of these models in University of Saskatchewan, Canada

sugarcane producing regions of the world will enable SSFs to gain adequate information as well as increase their eligibility for loans. Furthermore, there will be fare ownership of resources and distribution of risks and rewards between the sugarcane-allied industries and SSFs. Ultimately, the e-platforms will strengthen the participation for SSFs in the process of commercialization, enhancing incorporation of SSFs alongside largescale commercial farming projects.

Smallholders lack information to forecast product prices, farm input prices, weather conditions and ability to explore other markets outside sugar industries and these significantly impact their market advantage. Accessibility of industrial producers to information communication technology (ICT)-enabled services such as phones, internet, and weather forecasts has given them relative advantage over smallholder farmers. Interestingly, affordable and operable ICT-enabled services that can improve the livelihoods of smallholders are growing rapidly. Most countries, including the rural populations of the developing world now have more than 90% of their population served by cell phone signals (George et al. 2011) and signal boosters have been developed for areas with poor signals. Introduction of e-platforms such ‘Electronic Wallet System’ in Nigeria, ‘Rueter Market Light’ in India, ‘AGRI WALLET’ in Kenya and AgUnity App in Papua New Guinea has been useful in solving major agricultural problems relating to sustainability and market accessibility. Here, I propose e-SugarFarm App that will be globally accessible to provide SSFs localized non-urban forecasts on weather reports, updated market prices and agronomic tips on sugarcane production. It will also serve as an e-commerce platform with blockchain linking SSFs with potential buyers from bioenergy, sugar and animal feeds industries on a smart contract, eliminating the monopsony of sugar mills and lack of transparency. Payments for proceeds will be made into the mobile wallet, a form of cryptocurrency which can be used to purchase inputs, get loan or be converted into cash.

What the future holds for smallholder sugarcane farmers as planned Implementation of these plans will not only improve productivity, sustainability and market accessibility for SSFs, it will also assure them of a profitable future in sugarcane production (Fig. 1). When this plan is in place, SSFs will: 1) through their co-operative groups avoid costly individual shipment by aggregating their produce in bulk, 2) be more attracted to sugarcane production with confidence of ready access to useful information, 3) have adequate understanding of their land rights with better access to loans and rewards from a land lease, 4) enjoy transparent relationships with sugar mills and reduce or eliminate middlemen, 5) be less vulnerable to unprofitable contracts with sugar mills, 6) enjoy the availability of assets to promote sugarcane production, 7) have access to improved varieties adapted to their local environments, and 8) explore other sugarcane markets with automated business processes for them and their buyers.

33

Figure 1. Schematic representing a robust plan to improve the sustainability, productivity, and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers from global to grass-root level.

Limitations for implementing this plan 1. It is difficult to have a single ‘one-size-fits-all’ model given that production factors, policies, climatic/weather conditions, farmer’s education and experience, as well as their income status, are variable across regions of the world.

2. The unpredictability of adverse weather (e.g. flooding or drought) could negatively impact some steps in the plan 3. There is a limitation of suitable land or competition with other land uses which may also affect land availability for sugarcane production.

4. Changes in government and their policies may hinder the implementation of certain model, for example, land tenure act and increased phone tariff plans may not favor smallholders.

5. It may be difficult to achieve coordination among SSFs in the co-operative society as people differ in level of education, emotion and attitude.

6. It can be difficult to gain a critical mass of smallholders to join the e-platform and stay active as farmers are often reluctant to adopt newer technologies.

University of Saskatchewan, Canada

7. Release of improved sugarcane varieties locally adapted to specific areas will take several years, as breeding programs take several years. Furthermore, adoption of the released varieties by SSFs may also take time to achieve.

Short-term action steps needed to achieve this goal 1. Design of crop rotation plans based on plant-soil feedback principles with a focus on plant functional groups such that sugarcane is planted after a crop with different resource acquisition strategies.

2. Conduct survey experiments with research questionnaires designed to know the long or short term needs of SSFs in their local regions.

3. Creation of local co-operative groups through regulatory frameworks run for and by the farmers.

Non-governmental organizations, government units and International frameworks such as FAO will regulate the frameworks and ensure SSFs are more inclusively involved in business models.

4. Consultation with local extension agents to share relevant information on latest development, and to facilitate the adoption of the e-platforms, new varieties and best planting practices by the SSFs through demonstration trials.

Longer-term actions required 1. Development of best planting practice from demonstration trials to facilitate adoption in sugarcane agroecological regions. This will include tillage, fertilization and irrigation trials.

2. Multi-location research projects on plant-soil feedback mechanisms in sugarcane fields to understand how soil sickness develops in sugarcane and when cane quality starts to decline. It would also help us to know if the genotypes of sugarcane have different abilities to withstand associated soil sickness. Such project will help in the selection phase of the breeding project to deliver lines with top ability to recruit indigenous beneficial soil microorganisms.

3. World sugarcane breeding project: This project will involve collaborations with seed industries, international research institutes in the tropical and subtropical regions, and universities (i.e. those with expertise in marker-assisted breeding, CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing etc.). The research aspects of this plan will be an avenue to train and retain young scientists such as Master’s and Doctoral students in sugarcane research and development.

4. Creation of Global Sugar Farm (e-SugarFarm App) e-Platform that will generate information from local agro-meteorological stations and agricultural extension agents for use by a service provider. This App will communicate to a blockchain to record transactions ensuring security and transparency (Fig. 2). There will be a platform for local information on weather, production, market and supply. Individual players in sugarcane value chain (i.e. farmer, co-operative groups, buyers etc.) will have their own menu to operate and make transactions. For instance, industrial buyer can link up with a farmer or a co-operative group to purchase in bulk. To make the App operable for farmers with low level of education, users can select their

35

local language and menus will be in large-basic geometric shapes and common symbols in primary colors.

Based on subscription, the App will also generate short messaging services (SMS) on sugarcane market prices, best agronomic practices, weather forecast, agriculture-related news, best planting and harvesting days in local languages.

Figure 2. Proposed e-SugarFarm app with smart contract that will communicate to a blockchain to record transactions ensuring vast market accessibility, security and transparency

University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Literature cited African Times (2015) https://africatimes.com/2015/08/31/in-kenya-sugarcane-farmers-struggle-in problematic-sugar-industry/ Faostat, F. (2019). Food and agriculture data, 2019.

George, T., Bagazonzya, H., Ballantyne, P., Belden, C., Birner, R., Castello, R. D., ... & Edge, P. (2011). ICT in agriculture: connecting smallholders to knowledge, networks, and institutions (No. 64605, pp. 1-428). The World Bank.

Kidula-Lihasi, L., Onyango, C., & Ochola, W. (2016). Analysis of Smallholder Sugarcane Farmers’ Livelihood Assets in Relation to Food Security in Mumias Sub-County Kenya. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 7(20), 40-47.

Leite, J. G. D. B., Leal, M. R. L. V., & Langa, F. M. (2016). Sugarcane outgrower schemes in Mozambique: Findings from the field. In Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (Vol. 29, pp. 434-440).

Leite, J. G. D. B., Langa, F. M., von Maltitz, G., Leal, M. R. L. V., & Cortez, L. A. B. (2020). Sugarcane outgrower schemes model: Friend or foe? A question for smallholder farmers in Mozambique. World Development Perspectives, 100232 de Matos, M., Santos, F., & Eichler, P. (2020). Sugarcane world scenario. In Sugarcane Biorefinery, Technology and Perspectives (pp. 1-19). Academic Press.

Pankhurst, C. E., Magarey, R. C., Stirling, G. R., Blair, B. L., Bell, M. J., Garside, A. L., & Venture, S. Y. D. J. (2003).

Management practices to improve soil health and reduce the effects of detrimental soil biota associated with yield decline of sugarcane in Queensland, Australia. Soil and Tillage Research, 72(2), 125-137.

Richardson, B. (2010). Big Sugar in southern Africa: Rural development and the perverted potential of sugar/ethanol exports. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(4), 917–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.512464.

Surendran, U., Ramesh, V., Jayakumar, M., Marimuthu, S., & Sridevi, G. (2016). Improved sugarcane productivity with tillage and trash management practices in semi arid tropical agro ecosystem in India. Soil and Tillage Research, 158, 10-21.

Tena, E., Mekbib, F., Shimelis, H., & Mwadzingeni, L. (2016). Sugarcane production under smallholder farming systems: Farmers preferred traits, constraints and genetic resources. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 1191323.

37

Liuyue Yang | Junyi Jiang University of Tasmania, Australia (click to play video)

Undergraduate TEAM Category 1st Place

Food for the Future: How can the sustainability, productivity and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers be improved?

1 Introduction Globally, sugarcane is an important crop, with its ability to accumulate sugar and yield a high level of biomass. In Africa, the sugarcane industry plays an important role in increasing income and employment in countries, especially for those in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Thanks to the tropical and subtropical climate, SSA has geographic advantages to expand the production of sugarcane. Africa produces 5% of the current global sugarcane production, 83% of which is produced in SSA.1 However, due to a lack of economic and technical development as well as environmental deterioration, the profitability of sugarcane farming is declining, especially for smallholders.

In SSA, three-quarters of growers are more than 50 years old.2 Among them, 45% had primary education as the highest diploma, while only 5% had completed tertiary education.2 Additionally, 47.2% of smallholders have social grants as their main sector of income source, while only 16% have public or private sections, public or private sector jobs, or own businesses. Thereby, many smallholders also do not receive sufficient incomes to support their families.2 What is more, sugarcane production generates significant amounts of by-products, including bagasse. 270 kg of bagasse can be generated from around 1000 kg of sugarcane.3 However, bagasse is commonly utilised in a low value-added and environmentally damaging way, including burning to generate energy, or as a low-quality fertilizer.4 We believe there is a better utilisation for this resource.

In this essay, the example of SSA will be used as a model for global efforts to improve sugarcane production outcomes. Firstly, the urgent challenges faced by sugarcane smallholders in SSA is described. Then, a systematic approach to use complementary industries to support the development of better and more profitable farming practices is proposed. Finally, the feasibility and realism, as well as how this approach improves sustainability, productivity, and market accessibility, is discussed.

39

2 Challenges Sugarcane smallholders in SSA face many urgent challenges. Smallholders lack modern farm machinery, which leads to labour-intense but low productivity farming activities, especially during harvest.2 Additionally, smallholders normally work separately from each other and may lack critical information, such as weather forecasts and market prices.5 Also, because of technological and information gaps, farmers are more affected by unexpected weather events.1 For sustainability, the current inefficient utilisation of bagasse has led to environmental pollution and economic losses.1 Furthermore, smallholders currently face an unreasonable cost structure, such as excessive spending hiring temporary workers during key periods.6 A considerable part of labour costs must be paid to labour contractors, increasing overall costs. Also, as the current smallholder population is relatively old, and young workforces in SSA do not find farming activities attractive,2 it is urgent to attract young groups to avoid disruption.

3 Proposed solution In this essay, we propose an integrated social enterprise as a systematic approach based on an outgrowing model. The integrated social enterprise will cooperate with existing sugar manufacturing facilities (Figure 1). In this model, smallholder farmers (the outgrowers) are able to continue to use their land and labour for sugarcane production. They contract with the existing sugar factory to be sugarcane suppliers and gain agreeable sugarcane prices in return. Then, the sugarcane bagasse from the existing sugar factory will be transferred to the enterprise for making high added-value particleboards and be sold in both local and European furniture markets.

The revenues generated will be used to support the sugarcane production of smallholders in various ways.

The first is to purchase farming machinery as “shared machinery� for leasing to farmers at affordable prices.

The second is to provide training sessions on both farming and manufacturing skills. The third is to set up and maintain a comprehensive digital platform.

Figure 1 A systematic approach to deal with the challenge by establishing an integrated social enterprise.

University of Tasmania, Australia

The short-term goal is to pilot the systematic approach in several communities with existing outgrowing sugar companies, and then fix emerging issues of the systematic approach. The long-term goal is to carry out projects in a wide range of communities of sugarcane smallholders.

4 The feasibility and realism 4.1 Technical analysis Sugarcane bagasse is a suitable material for manufacturing particleboards. The fibrous residue of bagasse is high in cellulose content, which has a similar chemical composition and structure to wood.4 Although agricultural-based particleboards have lower strength than wood fibreboard, the strength properties could be improved with modern techniques, so that the physical and mechanical properties can be similar or even superior to Eucalyptus or Pinus board.4, 7 Introducing modern machinery into SSA is an effective way to solve productivity problems for smallholders.

In SSA, large commercial plantations generally use semi-mechanized farming methods,5 while smallholders generally require a higher labour intensity due to the high price of modern machinery.8 The concept of ‘shared farm machinery’ allows smallholders to hire machinery at a reasonable price, such as sugarcane cutters and harvesters. An obstacle is that smallholders may be not able to operate modern farm machinery, which can be overcome with our proposed training sessions.

Establishing a digital platform for the sugarcane smallholders is also proposed. The digital platform works as an intermediary agent, centralizing information between smallholders and sugar companies, and providing real-time sugarcane prices and weather information. Since internet users account for only 13% to 26% of the population in some SSA countries,9 the information is planned to be transmitted to farmers by short message service, which is already more commonly available. Additionally, the platform also allows the farmers with digital equipment to monitor the availability of machinery, and gain information on training sessions. However, there are three potential obstacles. First, the leaders of sugarcane communities are generally elderly and possess little education.5 They may be afraid that the new changes may weaken their leadership, which may slow down the development of communities.5 Second, intermediary platforms may be rejected by the farmers since the farmers did not trust them. For example, an intermediary association called MHOVA failed to be accepted by the farmers previously.5 The recommendation for overcoming these two obstacles is to attempt to demonstrate the benefits of the platform in small communities on a pilot scale, and then convince more smallholders to accept this systematic approach. Third, for those who are not able to read and write or lack mobile phones, they must learn information through word-ofmouth, which may lead to unequal access to information and supports. Recruiting volunteers to help them assess information and supports in person can be a short-term solution. More importantly, this problem will be solved in the future, because the number of mobile phone, internet, and online money account users increase in SSA.10

41

The training sessions mainly provide smallholders with farming management courses, farming supports, and promote the new model to widen acceptance. Teachers will be responsible for teaching modern farming technologies and practical farming skills, as well as explaining the systematic approach.

Overall, although some technical obstacles cannot be solved instantly, the obstacles will have less and less influence as the projects go ahead.

4.2 Economic analysis Economically, the enterprise can make money for providing support to farmers from the profits from manufacturing the particleboards with bagasse. Since the price of bagasse is related to the normally low fuel value,11 and the demand for particleboards is increasing, this value-added manufacturing is cost-effective. Furthermore, many sugar companies lose money from bagasse, which requires them to spend money on their disposal.4 Hence, it is feasible for the enterprise to purchase bagasse from existing local sugar companies at an agreeable price.

Table 1: Detailed expenditure of the projects for supporting smallholders

University of Tasmania, Australia

According to Komah12, the total capital investment for setting up a 15 years ‘service’ life bagasse particleboard factory which produces 300 boards per day (5010 kg) is around $291,224.53 and the gross profits (total income – total product cost) is $205,657/year.12 Although the particleboard manufacturing using bagasse is cost-effective, the start-up capital of the enterprise is high and the enterprise needs to look for sponsorship or funds, such as local government, civilian charities, the African Development Fund and individual supports.

Additionally, promotions on social media can widen social influence and aid money collecting.

The net profits are planned to spend on several projects to support the sugarcane smallholders to increase productivity, sustainability, and market accessibility. A rough expenditure estimation is detailed in Table 1.

5 The benefits 5.1 Sustainability Our systematic approach is sustainable. The biggest advantage of our outgrowing model is the high interaction with the surrounding society. The smallholders are involved in the commercial sugar value chain in the outgrowing model, which means that our model can be better integrated into the local society and economy.16 By involving particleboard manufacturing, the model could greatly improve both environmental and farming sustainability. Particleboards made of sugarcane bagasse present an alternative material to replace timber,4, 17 preventing deforestation and exploitation of natural forests. Additionally, the current application of bagasse may lead to environmental pollution. Hence, using particleboards made of bagasse is more environmentally friendly.

Through the support provided by the training sessions, smallholders will obtain knowledge on farm management, and emissions can be decreased by traditional pre-harvesting burning replacement.18 Although mechanising farming activities may reduce job opportunities on farms for smallholders,5 the particleboard manufacturing generates job opportunities for people liberated from labour-intense and dull farming activities. Therefore, farmers may diversify their income and master manufacturing skills by working in particleboard manufacturing.

Additionally, the young workforce in SSA is attracted to non-farming jobs. The increase in the employment rate may decrease the poverty rate.18 Last but not least, the model allows the farmers to maintain land tenure rights and achieve self-sufficiency in SSA where food is extremely insecure.5

5.2 Productivity Our systematic approach would greatly improve productivity. First, the shared farming machinery can liberate the farmers from labour intense farming activities. With the help of farming machinery suited to local conditions, the productivity can be greatly improved and the operating costs can be decreased.8 Second, productivity is highly related to the farming skills of farmers. Leite et. al 5 suggested that outgrowers with access to better support services and management skills can reach a higher net income. Third, the asymmetry between sugar companies and smaller holders may lead to poor relationships and high information transaction costs.5 Therefore, the digital platform can work as a trusted intermediary agent to reach sufficient transparency between outgrowers and sugar companies.

43

5.3 Market access Our systematic approach can improve the market access of particleboards and sugar. In terms of market access for particleboards, they have relatively a lower price than solid wood panels,4 which is a price advantage in both SSA and European markets. Also, bagasse particleboards are known to be environmentally friendly, which meets the expectation of customers. Furthermore, because of the low transport postage, the local people can benefit from purchasing cheaper and high-quality material for their household.

In terms of market access for sugar, the increase in productivity and sustainability of production, and reductions in production costs, could lead to higher competitiveness for smallholders in the international sugar market.8

6 Conclusion Sugarcane smallholders face many challenges, and there is an urgent need to help them by improving sustainability, productivity, and market access. Our systematic approach is to establish an integrated social enterprise to generate revenues mainly via manufacturing particleboards. The profits are used to provide greater opportunities for smallholders to increase their income, knowledge, and sense of security.

Bibliography 1. IPBO, Sugarcane in Africa. Outreach, I. P. B., Ed. 2017.

2. Philip, W.; Paul, J., A farm survey of small-scale sugarcane growers in Nkomazi, Mpumalanga province, South Africa. GDI Working Paper 2017-018 2017.

3. Mohlala, L. M.; Bodunrin, M. O.; Awosusi, A. A.; Daramola, M. O.; Cele, N. P.; Olubambi, P. A., Beneficiation of corncob and sugarcane bagasse for energy generation and materials development in Nigeria and South Africa: A short overview. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2016, 55 (3), 3025-3036.

4. Belete, T.; Hailegebriel, G.; Meroda, T. G., Case study for the construction of particleboard using sugarcane bagasse: a review. Researchgate 2019.

5. Leite, J. G. D. B.; Langa, F. M.; von Maltitz, G.; Leal, M. R. L. V.; Cortez, L. A. B., Sugarcane outgrower schemes model: Friend or foe? A question for smallholder farmers in Mozambique. World Development Perspectives 2020, 100232.

6. Mnisi, M. S.; Dlamini, C. S., The concept of sustainable sugarcane production: Global, African and South African perceptions. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2012, 7(31), 4337-4343.

7. Oliveira, S. L.; Mendes, R. F.; Mendes, L. M.; Freire, T. P., Particleboard panels made from sugarcane bagasse: characterization for use in the furniture industry. Materials Research 2016, 19 (4), 914-922.

8. Ali, J., Mechanization of Sugarcane cultivation. Researchgate 2015.

University of Tasmania, Australia

9. Lyons, A. C.; Kass-Hanna, J.; Greenlee, A. Impacts of financial and digital inclusion on poverty in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa; ADBI Working Paper Series: 2020.

10. Steel, G.; Cottyn, I.; van Lindert, P., New connections–new dependencies: Spatial and digital flows in sub-Saharan African Livelihoods. In Livelihoods and Development, Brill: 2017; pp 148-167.

11. Paturau, J., Alternative uses of sugarcane and its byproducts in agroindusrties. FAO, Ed. 1988.

12. Komah, B. Study on the production and economic analysis of particleboard from sugarcane. The School of Chemical and Bio Engineering, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2018.

13. Alibaba http://www.alibaba.com.

14. WebFx https://www.webfx.com/How-much-should-web-site-cost.html.

15. explorer, S. http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=69&loctype=1&job=50&jobtype=1.

16. Hall, R.; Scoones, I.; Tsikata, D., Plantations, outgrowers and commercial farming in Africa: agricultural commercialisation and implications for agrarian change. The Journal of Peasant Studies 2017, 44 (3), 515-537.

17. Odeyemi, S.; Abdulwahab, R.; Adeniyi, A.; Atoyebi, O., Physical and mechanical properties of cement-bonded particle board produced from African balsam tree (Populous Balsamifera) and periwinkle shell residues. Results in Engineering 2020, 100126.

18. Hess, T. M.; Sumberg, J.; Biggs, T.; Georgescu, M.; Haro-Monteagudo, D.; Jewitt, G.; Ozdogan, M.; Marshall, M.; Thenkabail, P.; Daccache, A., A sweet deal? Sugarcane, water and agricultural transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Global Environmental Change 2016, 39, 181-194.

45

Timothy Simich | Yin Stan Cheung University of Sydney, Australia (click to play video)

Undergraduate TEAM Category 2nd Place

Food for the Future: How can the sustainability, productivity and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers be improved?

A model of a co-owned biorefinery

Introduction 820 million people in the world are estimated to suffer from hunger – a number that has been slowly rising despite decades of steady decline (FAO 2019). Moreover, the ways in which many of these people earn their living are under threat from more frequent droughts and extreme temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change. Smallholder sugarcane farmers are especially vulnerable to these urgent issues. This essay outlines our vision for improving the sustainability, productivity, and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers.

Specifically, we set out a model of a co-owned biorefinery that involves smallholders, the private sector, and the government. In this model, smallholders supply sugarcane and labour to a biorefinery that they co-own with

47

the private sector. From these inputs this biorefinery co-produces several outputs including biofuels, sugars, and fertilisers. Profits made from the sale of these outputs are then distributed between the smallholders and the private sector. This is a vision that entails expanding the opportunities of smallholder farmers to pursue what they themselves have reason to value (Sen 1999). It involves farmers who are active agents in their own development process, not passive recipients who benefit from clever development strategies. This essay is structured as follows. First, we provide some context of the global biofuels and sugarcane market. Second, we present our model of a co-owned biorefinery. Finally, we propose next steps forward to feasibly implement our model and discuss how potential challenges may be overcome.

1 Context of the global biofuels and sugarcane market The biofuels market has recently seen a huge expansion. Between 2007 and 2019, global bioethanol production has doubled from around 14 billion gallons to 28 billion gallons, as shown in Figure 1. Although this expansion has mostly been driven by the USA and Brazil, there is great potential for other countries to access this expanding market.

Figure 1: Trends in global bioethanol production (AFDC 2020)

There is potential for further expansion of biofuel demand because of the climate change commitments made in the 2015 Paris Agreement (Rott et al. 2018, p. 317). It has been estimated that to achieve these commitments, the share of transport energy represented by biofuels could increase from 3% to 16% (Rott et al. 2018, p. 318).

In contrast, the global production of sugar, has remained relatively stable, as shown in Figure 2. This is despite sugarcane production itself having increased.

The context given here of the global biofuel and sugarcane market draws out three trends: first, the growing University of Sydney, Australia

production of bioethanol; second, a supportive institutional context due to climate change commitments; third, the less promising growth prospects of the sugar market. It is for these reasons that we focus on the biofuels market rather than the sugar market.

Figure 2: Trends in global sugar production (USDA 2020)

2 Model of a co-owned biorefinery In light of this context, we propose a model of a co-owned biorefinery as a way of improving the sustainability, productivity and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers. First, we offer an overview of our model.

Second, we explain the inputs to our model. Third, we explain the outputs of our model. Fourth, we give an example of our model in practice.

2.1 An overview We propose a model for a co-owned biorefinery that processes sugarcane into several co-products to be used locally or exported for revenue. It is co-owned by smallholder farmers and private sector companies. Although biorefineries have many potential co-products, as summarised in Figure 3, in our model, we focus on the co-production of bioethanol, sugar and fertiliser.1 Our model would improve the sustainability of smallholder sugarcane farmers by providing them with a local way of processing their sugarcane into products that may be used as inputs for their farming, such as bioethanol to fuel machinery, or fertiliser. Moreover, bioethanol is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. This also

1

A full account of potential outputs is given in Johnson and Seebaluck (2013, Part II), where it is explained that the precise set up of a biorefinery changes based on several criteria (technology implementation status, type of raw materials used, type of intermediate used, main type of conversion processes). That is, practical, evidence-based guidelines are available in the literature for the design of a biorefinery. For case studies of biorefinery co-products, see Johnson and Seebaluck (2013, Chapter 16), although note that that chapter and the subsequent chapter on investments take a different approach to our model.

49

Figure 3: The potential co-products of a biorefinery (Johnson and Seebaluck 2013, p.100)

improves the productivity of smallholder sugarcane farmers. It may further improve productivity by increasing the incentives of smallholders to adopt more productive techniques and technologies, given that there is a local and sustainable demand for their sugarcane output. Our model improves the market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers by partnering them with private sector companies who have access to the expanding biofuel market, and also to the labour market because the biorefinery offers opportunities for employment.2

2.2 Inputs of our model Figure 4: Inputs of a co-owned biorefinery

2

Similar models have been proposed with partnerships between universities, government, and private companies. See the literature on the triple helix co-operation model, especially Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995) and Etzkowitz (1996; 2003). Our model is novel in that it proposes partnerships with smallholders.

University of Sydney, Australia

The first input is the initial finance to construct a biorefinery. In our model, this comes from both the smallholders and the private sector who become co-owners. We propose that the government plays a faciliatory role by providing income-based loans to smallholders for their initial finance. An income based loan system means that loans are repaid as a percentage of income.3 We make two remarks.

First, note that it is the government, not the private sector, who provides the loans. This is because the private sector is often only willing to offer loans that are small and repaid in shorter periods of time. Second, note that the proposed loan system does not require increasing taxation or drawing away from existing expenditures.

Indeed, these funds may come from foreign aid.4 The second inputs are capital and labour. There is an initial supply of capital (machinery, facilities, and their design) by the private sector, and the ongoing input of sugarcane from smallholders. Other than initial set up and overall monitoring of the production process, there is little need for highly skilled labour (provided by the private sector) and instead, the operation of the biorefinery would be a source of employment for smallholders. There is also the need for a small transportation network, operated by smallholders, to deliver the sugarcane to the biorefinery.

2.3 Outputs of our model Figure 5: Outputs of a co-owned biorefinery

First, there are technical outputs. In our model, the biorefinery produces bioethanol, sugar, and fertiliser.

3

Similar loan systems include the university loan system in Australia and England (Chapman 1996; 2006; Barr et al. 2019).

4

There is room for such aid because only 5 of the 24 members of the Development Assistance Committee have been meeting their 0.7% of national income foreign aid targets (OECD 2019).

51

These co-products may be exported to generate revenue or be used for domestic consumption. Biofuels may serve as transport fuel, and especially for developing countries, heat and power for cooking, lighting, and industry (Worldwatch Institute 2012, p. 130). Fertiliser also has domestic demand through redistribution to the smallholder farms that supplied the biorefinery with sugarcane. Indeed, such use of sugarcane is preferable to the practice of pre-harvest burning of cane trash which is still common on non-commercial sugarcane farms.

This also allows important nutrients to return to the soil for future growing seasons (Bakker 1999). Sugar would be sold in the same manner as in any other sugar refinery.

Second, there is the question over the distribution of profits made from these outputs. In our model, this question is answered by the smallholders and private companies themselves by deliberation. That is, by forming proposals, discussing their arguments for and against these proposals, and collectively choosing a proposal that they both accept. This aligns with our vision because it gives smallholder farmers the opportunity to pursue what they themselves have reason to value.

Finally, a percentage of the profits distributed to smallholder farmers is distributed to the government as repayments for the loans that were used for the initial finance.

2.4 An Example of our model in practice A small biorefinery is estimated to require $21 million USD in initial finance (Covey et al. 2014, p. 220). Suppose there are 100 smallholders who own 50% of the biorefinery and private companies which own the other 50%. This means that the initial finance for one smallholder is $105 000 USD, for which the government provides an income-based loan. Suppose the repayments of these loans are at 50% of annual incomes from the biorefinery. These funds go directly to the private sector to build the biorefinery.

Suppose these smallholders supply a daily average of 100 tonnes of sugarcane, and the annual operating costs are an average wage of $20 000 USD for 50 employees, and $500 000 USD for maintenance and insurance. These technical inputs are estimated to yield a daily output of 75 tonnes of bioethanol (Covey et al. 2014, p. 220).

Given these outputs, we may calculate the profits of the biorefinery which make it feasible. Suppose that bioethanol (12 MJ/kg) has the same price on an energy basis as bunker oil (44.8 MJ/kg) (Covey et al. 2014, p.

220). Consider two cases: an ‘optimistic’ case where these prices are high, at $630/tonne for bunker oil (November 2012, Singapore), and a ‘pessimistic’ case, at $327/tonne (September 2020, Singapore). If the biorefinery annually operates at equal capacity for 350 days, then the profit is $3 429 687.50 USD in the first case, and $1 299 237.50 USD in the second. This is summarised in Table 1.

These profits are distributed as follows. Suppose that, in their deliberation, the smallholders and private companies agree to a principle that any inequalities are such that they are to the greatest benefit of the least-adUniversity of Sydney, Australia

vantaged (Rawls 1971, pp. 73–76). This results in profits being distributed 55% and 45% to smallholders and private companies respectively.

Table 1: Annual costs, revenue and profits of the biorefinery

The average annual income of smallholders from the biorefinery is therefore $16 113.28 USD for the ‘optimistic’ case, and $4395.81 USD for the ‘pessimistic’ case. It takes approximately 14 years for the average smallholder to repay back their loan in the ‘optimistic’ case, and 48 years in the ‘pessimistic’ case.

3 Next steps forward and potential challenges Step 1: Find a government and private company willing to participate A first challenge is that governments may be unwilling to participate by providing loans to smallholders. We propose that the private sector may help in overcoming this challenge. An example is the Tata Group which has provided its workers with loans to purchase shares in its tea plantations in South-East India. The workers have owned the majority of these shares since the 2000’s (Neilson and Pritchard 2009, pp. 224–225).

A second challenge is that private companies may be unwilling to participate due to risk driven by volatile bioethanol prices. The government may fund the project in its entirety in such a case for two reasons: first, the loan is income based, not time-based, so periods of poor profit do not accrue a penalty for missed loan repayments (that could otherwise lead to higher rates of default); second, the same volatility in the global fuel market that led the private company to not enter the market provides an incentive to domestically produce and use biofuels as a buffer against this volatility.

Step 2: Operate the biorefinery We anticipate that there may be challenges in the coordination of labour and capital. However, we may draw from the literature on common pool resource institutions which has established the following seven principles for these coordination challenges to feasibly be overcome.

Step 3: Sell the outputs We anticipate a challenge that there may not be existing infrastructure or supporting institutions for the sale

53

Table 2: Design principles illustrated by long-enduring common pool resource institutions (adapted from Ostrom 1990, p. 90.

of the co-products of the biorefinery.5 Moreover, the construction and operation of the biorefinery may have inflationary pressures. We concede that these would be major challenges. However, this is not a weakness of the model, but a strength, in that although the model does not solve everything, it draws our attention to the broader infrastructural investments and institutional reforms needed to improve the sustainability, productivity, and market access of sugarcane farmers. It highlights the need for strong infrastructure in electricity, roads, and ports, as well as the need for supportive institutions like fair and efficient markets, and governments who are focused on expanding the opportunities of its citizens.

5

Indeed, Brazil’s export success is largely due to the piggybacking of bioethanol exports onto its existing petrochemical export industries (Worldwatch Institute 2012, p. 244) – something not necessarily replicable in developing countries

University of Sydney, Australia

Step 4: Share sustainable/productive agricultural practices and technology In the long term, we envision that the biorefinery and associated emerging biofuel industry will act as a conduit for the sharing of sustainable and productive agricultural practices and technology from other biofuel producing regions. Knowledge might be shared from existing best practice programs for sugarcane and biofuels such as Bonsuro (2020) with a global outlook, Smartcane BMP (2020) in Australia, and the South African Sugarcane Research Institute (2019). However, without the market access created by the model we propose, it is difficult to see how programs such as these would be able to engage with smallholders to address sustainability and productivity.

Conclusion The expanding global biofuels market has created opportunities of too great potential to be ignored. We have proposed a model of a co-owned biorefinery as a way of capturing this potential. We have offered a realistic way forward in four steps, and have discussed how some potential challenges may be overcome. Issues such as hunger and climate change require sustainable solutions that increase the productivity and market access of those involved. It is in the coming together of smallholders, the private sector, and government that these solutions may be found and made a reality, and in doing so, expand the opportunities of all of us to pursue what we have reason to value. To this end, our model of a co-owned biorefinery offers a first step forward.

References AFDC (2020), Global Ethanol Production, data retrieved from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (U.S. Department of Energy), https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10331.

Bakker, H. (1999), Sugar cane cultivation and management, Springer Science & Business Media, New York.

Barr, N., Chapman, B., Dearden, L., and Dynarski, S. (2019), ‘The US college loans system: Lessons from Australia and England’, Economics of Education Review 71, pp. 32–48.

Bonsuro (2020), Bonsucro Production Standard, program information available at http://www.bonsucro.com/production-standard.

Chapman, B. (1996), ‘The rationale for the higher education contribution scheme’, The Australian Universities’ Review 39.1, pp. 43-50.

— (2006), Government Managing Risk: Income Contingent Loans for Social and Economic Progress, Taylor & Francis, Milton Park.

Covey, G., Allender, B., Laycock, B., and O’Shea, M. (2014), ‘Biorefineries as sources of fuels and chemicals’, Appita: Technology, Innovation, Manufacturing, Environment 67.3, pp. 219-225.

55

Etzkowitz, H. (1996), ‘The Triple Helix: Academic–Industry–Government Relations: Implications for the New York Regional Innovation Environment’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 787.1, pp. 67–86.

— (2003), ‘Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations’, Social Science Information 42.3, pp. 293–337.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1995), ‘The Triple Helix–University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development’, EASST Review 14.1, pp. 14–19.

FAO (2019), The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019: safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns, The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

Johnson, F. X. and Seebaluck, V. (2013), Bioenergy for sustainable development and international competitiveness: the role of sugar cane in Africa, Routledge, Milton Park.

Neilson, J. and Pritchard, B. (2009), Value chain struggles: institutions and governance in the plantation districts of South India, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

OECD (2019), ODA 2019 preliminary figures, data retrieved from The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/developmentfinance-data/.

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA. Rott, P. et al. (2018), Achieving sustainable cultivation of sugarcane. Volume 1: Cultivation techniques, quality and sustainability. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, Philadelphia.

Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Smartcane BMP (2020), Smartcane Best Management Practises, program information available at https://smartcane.com.au/about.

South African Sugarcane Research Institute (2019), Sustainable Sugarcane Farm Management System, manual available at https://sasri.org.za/storage/2019/09/SUSFARMS-Manual_v4.pdf.

USDA (2020), Sugar: World Markets and Trade, data retrieved the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/sugar-world-markets-and-trade.

Worldwatch Institute (2012), Biofuels for transport: global potential and implications for sustainable energy and agriculture, Earthscan, London.

University of Sydney, Australia

57

Allan Soo University of Technology Sydney, Australia (click to play video)

Undergraduate INDIVIDUAL Category 1ST Place

CANEHAUS Growing Brazil’s sugarcane future Introduction It can be said that sugarcanes are like people - they can either be sweet or bitter. Much like sugar and alcohol, or ethanol when used as a biofuel. Sugarcanes are some of Brazil’s most important agricultural commodities able to produce ethanol thanks to the high extraction efficiencies [1] and energy ratios [2]. It is also important in the production of sugar. Yep, that sweet stuff you put into your coffee at work to keep you awake. But making sugar creates vinasse as a waste by-product [3], and is capital- [3], water- and electricity-intensive [3].

110 countries contribute to 80% of the total sugar output [4], with smallholders operating about 75% of the world’s total agricultural land and Brazil possessing 5% of the total farmed land [5]. Brazil is used as the model market for this case thanks to its world leading position on sugarcane products [6] [7] [8] [9]. The essay introduces issues faced by sugarcane smallholders within Brazil regarding deforestation, smallholder exclusion, and declining productivity. The solution uses an app that connects smallholders to opportunities through land-access, capital-sharing, and new markets with simpler transactions. The results, barriers, and future steps are then discussed.

The Importance of smallholder inclusion Three-quarters of Brazil’s biofuel production comes from sugarcane-derived ethanol [10]. Participation by smallholders for ethanol and sugar production were limited [10] [11], driven by increased competition, barriers to land, stringent demands, and high transactional fees [12]. Higher urban population densities of Brazil with sugarcane production have experienced improved living standards and economic wellbeing across all eight indexes (except 2010) (see Figure 1) [13] as more sugarcane smallholders have greater social networks, are located closer to opportunities, and decide on best offers [14]. When financially capable, smallholders are open to adopting new agricultural innovations [15]. Smallholder inclusion is important because it improves living standards and economic wellbeing.

59

Figure 1 Adapted from Machado et al. [13], showing how populated areas have improved living standards for Brazilian farmers with sugarcane (WS).

Urgency 1: Carbon sink or carbon fountain?

Brazil is also home to the world’s largest rainforest and is a developing country that relies heavily on its agricultural sector. The country has the dilemma of balancing deforestation for sugarcane plantations with maintaining its economic growth. Between 2002-2012, 16.3 km2, or 12.2% of Brazil’s forests were cut for sugarcane plantations, adding 189.4 million Mg of carbon emissions [16]. Amazonian deforestation for ethanol production was found to be unsustainable creating 608 Mg CO2/ha [17], and the Amazon poses a risk of becoming a carbon source, rather than an absorber if deforestation continues [18]. Figure 2 shows the amount of carbon stored in the Amazon [17]: Figure 2: It would take 62 years to reverse carbon damages done by deforestation against the Amazon rainforest.

Picture adapted from Alkimim & Clarke [17].

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Urgency 2: Smallholder exclusion Figure 3: Centralised contract farming favours large companies [19] [20]. Nucleus-estate allows larger farmers to use smallholders as stock buffer [21]. Multipartite benefits smallholders due to shared risks and responsibilities [22]. Informal contracting usually done on a seasonal basis with smallholders [23]. Intermediary/Cooperative Contracting tends to lead to varying qualities in output. Blend of both Centralised and Informal Contracting [20] [21]. Graphics by author.

Contract farming is defined by the creation of formal contracts between companies and farmers. Companies gain access to land and agricultural produces and in exchange, farmers gain access to larger and more lucrative markets. Figure 3 shows the common models for contract farming. There are approximately 4.4 million smallholders in Brazil which produce about 85% of the country’s agricultural output and 70% of the food that is consumed domestically [24]. 50% of Brazil’s farmers own less than 5 hectares of land, with many of them excluded from the main competition [25]. There are barriers for smallholders to contract farming as identified in Vamuloh et al. [26]. These include demographic traits, farm structure, production characteristics, and farmer attitudes towards contract farming [26]. Other barriers include the rural-urban divide where rural farmers face exclusion from contract farming [27] [28]; discrimination based on fertile soil quality [29] [30]; and favouring farmers who own, rather than rent land for collateral on loans [31].

Urgency 3: Falling sugarcane productivity Demand for ethanol relies heavily on the fuel mixes of gasoline/petroleum set by government mandates. Despite the impending transition towards Electric Vehicles, this growth is expected to be large. By 2027, the global fuel mix of E10 (10% ethanol mix in car gasoline) is expected to remain fixed through to 2027 which previously has seen a 2.3% fall in prices compared to crude oil [32]. Brazil’s domestic ethanol demand is expected to expand by 5.4 billion litres between the 2018-2027 period, with its government mandating a 55% fuel-ethanol mix by 2030 [32].

61

Global demand for sugar has remained stable yet, constrained, with consumption per capita intake hovering around 22.8-22.9 kg/year per person since 2017 [33]. Brazil’s share of global sugar exports has fallen by 14.5% between 2008-2018, with Thailand increasing its share by 7.9% in the same period thanks to its accumulated capital [33]. The EU and the US are expected to buy less sugar, while India and Thailand are expected to grow exports [33].

Increasingly, Brazil is pressured to look inwards to grow the ethanol and sugar markets. Cheaper crude oil prices will make ethanol production less economically attractive and falling Brazilian sugar supplies have allowed countries like India and Thailand to expand their market shares. Unfavourable weather, slower renewal rates of sugarcane fields, rising capital costs cutting back usage of fertilisers and pesticides, have also contributed to falling Brazilian sugarcane production [33].

Solution: An all-in-one app solution “CaneHaus�

The solution will be to develop an app called CaneHaus which connects smallholders with vacant pastures, creates a connected community of people who can then buy, rent, or sell commodities and capital off each other, and purchases sugarcanes using a collectivised pricing scheme.

Step 1: Link sugarcane smallholders with vacant pastures Given the competitive disadvantage that sugarcane smallholders in Brazil have against larger plantations, the farming of degraded pastures will reduce competition, avoid deforestation and allow productive reuse of harvested land [34]. How this can be achieved efficiently is the real question. Brazil has 89.8 million smartphone users, Figure 4: Land by type across Brazil (left) adapted from Bordonal et al. [34], and the sugarcane app for smallholders to locate land for farming (map adapted from Alkimim & Clarke [17]).

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

indicating a penetration rate of around 40% which is typical for a developing country [35]. One of the key functionalities of the app is to link sugarcane smallholders with vacant land to increase domestic sugarcane supply.

Step 2: Communal equipment sharing Once land is acquired or leased, equipment owners across Brazilian communities will be presented with the opportunity to share equipment. Scholtes [25] proposed the use of mini distilleries to alleviate poverty through a localised ethanol economy. While the renting of tractors will improve access and productivity of small sugarcane smallholders. CaneHaus will connect smallholders with equipment owners who can then rent out mini distilleries and tractors during its downtime on a regular or seasonal basis, therefore, improving the productivity of smallholder farms. Figure 5 shows how this works.

Figure 5: App showing how equipment will be rented.

Step 3: Link app with major buyers of sugarcane and ethanol Leveraging off the community built from CaneHaus, buyers and suppliers will seamlessly use the platform to purchase and sell sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol. This will support a multipartite model of contract farming within Brazil on a digital level, as this model is shown to be the most inclusive towards smallholders. Governments and NGOs can use the app to support registered and verified smallholders, to which they can sell sugarcane and ethanol to contracting companies. From this, smallholders all agree to sell sugarcane at the same agreed price which eliminates the difficulties faced by buyers from negotiating for individual prices and builds trust due to the verified nature of the transactions. Figure 6 shows the model of this step.

63

Figure 6: Showing the communal ecosystem arising from the sugarcane share economy.

Outcomes There are three outcomes arising from the usage of CaneHaus. First off, the leasing or sale of cultivated and degraded pastures away from the Amazon can save 588.5 Mg/ha and 553.13 Mg/ha respectively from deforestation-initiated carbon release [17] and contributes to a greener future for Brazil. Using CaneHaus, smallholders are better connected to unforested, but vacant land, leaving a greener footprint for the environment.

Secondly, giving greater access to capital for sugarcane smallholders will improve smallholder inclusion [36].

In Brazil, about 35% of sugarcane cultivation is processed with mechanisation [37], making the large proportion of the smallholder population dependent on manual labour. The second result is the improved access to mechanised capital for smallholders, potentially increasing sugarcane output productivities by up to 70% [38] [39] and address mechanisation barriers (see Figure 7). The third result is the creation of an ecosystem which simplifies contract farming through collective selling methods, allowing smallholders to band together to deal with buyer(s) at both local and international levels. This greater smallholder inclusion will lead to higher crop yields for Brazil’s sugarcane farmers and a stronger sense of community.

Figure 7: Adapted from Cortez et al. [36], smallholders face steep financial barriers to accessing mechanised capital.

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Barriers to implementation Brazil has unique challenges faced by many other developing countries. These issues include capital costs and limited access to technology [40], political barriers [36], turbulent climates [41], and lack of economies of scale for smallholder sugarcane farmers [25]. However, cultures will differ from a country-on-country basis with, for example, Brazil having a less cooperative culture which makes multipartite farming models difficult [25]. It is anticipated that the app will allow a multipartite farming model to work by making relationships more virtual and using a review system for its users. With limited technology access, the adoption rate of smartphones is also another barrier for many poor countries. This barrier is expected to become less severe as average smartphone prices have dropped from $US348.60 in 2011 to $US214.70 in 2019 [42] with this trend continuing for years ahead due to pricing pressures on consumers and an increasingly saturated smartphone market [43].

Future steps and lessons learned Figure 8: CaneHaus’s business model will help connect smallholders to a better life.

Throughout the developing world, as much as 65% of farming power is supplied through human labour, requiring global food productions to increase 70% by 2050 to meet the needs of the world’s growing populations and up by 100% for developing countries [44]. The average sugarcane smallholder from a developing economy yields around 2.9 tonnes/ha compared to 6.5 tonnes/ha for commercially-oriented farmers in developed markets [45]. With growing food scarcity for the world’s growing populations, more needs to be done to include smallholders in the supply chain. Future app features could help see more smallholders make financially informed decisions on loans, improved payment options like price hedging, and easier, more secure transactions that empower producer-smallholder relationships - creating win-win outcomes [40]. The short-term benefits include improved financial management and capitalisation of land by smallholders, while long-term smallholder survival is enhanced due to improved access to more buyers and markets through the app.

Several key dimensions that influence smallholder inclusivity were outlined by Ros-Tonen et al. [46] and included: profits; stakeholder alignments; sustainability; an enabling smallholder-buyer environment; and gender

65

equity. Wealth inequality stemming typically from contract farming [47], exacerbates all these factors. CaneHaus will, over time, redefine contract farming that will bridge land barriers, prevent deforestation, alleviate poverty through a sharing economy, support gender equality from the creation of impartial virtual communities, and better match expectations between stakeholders and smallholders. CaneHaus gives smallholders the power to take control of their economic future together; have affordable rental access to capital when they need it; and create an enabling, tolerant, and greener environment which facilitates healthy and expanded relationships between smallholders, institutions, and customers. CaneHaus helps sugarcane farmers grow together!

References [1] G. Hollander, “Power is sweet: sugarcane in the global ethanol assemblage,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 699-721, 2010.

[2] J. K. Bourne, “Green dreams,” National Geographic, vol. 212, no. 4, pp. 38-59, 2007.

[3] R. M. Filho, P. E. Mantelatto, O. Cavalett, C. Rossell, A. Bonomi, M. Leal and M. Dias, “Sugarcane processing for ethanol and sugarin Brazil,” Environmental Development, vol. 15, pp. 35-51, 2015.

[4] ISO, “The Sugar Market,” International Sugar Organization, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.isosugar.org/ sugarsector/sugar. [Accessed 21 June 2020].

[5] S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet and T. Raney, “The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide,” World Development, vol. 87, pp. 16-29, 2016.

[6] Food Agricultural Service, “Global Sugar Production to Jump in 2020/21 But Stocks Continue to Fall,” United States Department of Agriculture, https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/sugar.pdf, 2020.

[7] W. P. Review, “Sugar Producing Countries 2020,” World Population Review, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/sugar-producing-countries/. [Accessed 25 6 2020].

[8] RFA, “2019 Ethanol Industry Outlook,” Renewable Fuels Association, https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RFA2019Outlook.pdf, 2019.

[9] Knoema, “Fuel ethanol consumption,” Knoema, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Energy/Renewables/Fuel-ethanol-consumption. [Accessed 25 6 2020].

[10] J. Hall, S. Matos, L. Severino and N. Beltra˜o, “Brazilian biofuels and social exclusion: established and concentrated ethanol,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, pp. 77-85, 2009.

[11] P. Sakai, S. Afionis, N. Favretto, L. C. Stringer, C. Ward, M. Sakai, P. Neto, C. H. Rocha, J. A. Gomes, N. M. de Souza and N. Afzal, “Understanding the Implications of Alternative Bioenergy Crops to Support Smallholder Farmers in Brazil,” Sustainability, vol. 12, p. 21446, 2020.

[12] J. Blanc and P. R. Kledal, “The Brazilian organic food sector: Prospects and constraints of facilitating theinclusion of smallholders,” Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 28, pp. 142-154, 2012.

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

[13] p. G. Machado, M. Picoli, L. J. Torres, J. G. Oliveira and A. Walter, “The use of socioeconomic indicators to assess the impacts of sugarcane,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 52, pp. 1519-1526, 2015.

[14] C. R. Granja and M. Wollni, “Dynamics of smallholder participation in horticultural export chains: evidence from Ecuador,” Agricultural Economics, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 225-235, 2018.

[15] S. Olum, X. Gellynck1, J. Juvinal1, D. Ongeng and H. De Steur, “Farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations: A systematic review on willingness to pay studies,” Outlook on Agriculture, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 187-203, 2020.

[16] t. Jusys, “A confirmation of the indirect impact of sugarcane on deforestation in the Amazon,” Journal of Land Science, vol. 12, no. 2-3, pp. 125-137, 2017.

[17] A. Alkimim and K. C. Clarke, “Land use change and the carbon debt for sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil,” Land Use Policy, vol. 72, pp. 65-73, 2018.

[18] F. Harvey, “Tropical forests losing their ability to absorb carbon, study finds,” The Guardian, 5 March 2020.

[Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/04/tropical-forests-losing-their-ability-to-absorb-carbon-study-finds.

[Accessed 26 6 2020].

[19] C. Eaton and A. W. Shepherd, “Contract farming: Partnerships for growth,” Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/3/y0937e/y0937e00.pdf, 2001.

[20] M. Prowse, “Contract farming in developing countries: a review,” A Savoir, https://portal.research.lu.se/ws/ files/5824557/5218915.pdf, 2012.

[21] J. Bijman, “Contract farming in developing countries: An overview,” Wageningen International, The Netherlands, 2008.

[22] A. T. Melese, “Contract farming: Business models that maximise the inclusion of and benefits for smallholder farmers in the value chain.,” Uniform Law Review ­— Revue de Droit Uniforme, vol. 17, no. 1-2, p. 291, 2012.

[23] N. Minot, Contract farming in developing countries: Patterns, impacts and policy implications. In Food policy for developing countries: The role of government in global, national and local food systems, New York: Cornell University: Cornell University Press., 2007.

[24] A. S. Gross, “As Brazilian agribusiness booms, family farms feed the nation,” Mongabay Series: Amazon Agribusiness, 17 January 2019. [Online]. Available: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/01/as-brazilian-agribusiness-booms-family-farms-feed-the-nation/.

[Accessed 28 June 2020].

[25] F. Scholtes, “Status quo and prospects of smallholders in the Brazilian sugarcane and ethanol sector: Lessons for development and poverty reduction,” ZEF Working Paper Series, vol. 43, pp. 1-18, 2009.

[26] V. V. Vamuloh, R. Panwar, S. M. Hagerman, C. Gaston and R. A. Kozak, “Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in the global foodsector: A systematic literature review to examine small farmers engagement in contract farming,” Business Strategy and Development, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 276-289, 2019.

[27] F.-G. Anseeuw and M. D’Haese, “Demythifying con-tract farming: Evidence from rural South Africa,” African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 5, no. 7, p. 514, 2012.

67

[28] C. Andersson, C. Chege, M. Qaim and E. Rao, “Following Up on Smallholder Farmers and Supermarkets in Kenya,” Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 1247-1266, 2015.

[29] R. Herrmann and U. Grote, “Large-scale agro-industrial investments and rural poverty: Evidence from sugarcane in Malawi,” Journal of African Economies, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 645-676, 2015.

[30] M. Oelofse, H. Hogh-Jensen, L. S. Abreu, G. F. Almeida, Q. Y. Hui, T. Sultan and A. de Neergaard, “Certified organic agriculture in China and Brazil: Market accessibility and outcomes following adoption,” Ecological Economics, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 1785-1793, 2010.

[31] K. Amanor, “Global resource grabs, agribusiness concentration andthe smallholder: Two West African case studies,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 39, no. 3-4, pp. 731-749, 2012.

[32] FAO, “OECD FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018 2027,” Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations, http://www.agri-outlook.org/commodities/Agricultural-Outlook-2018-Biofuels.pdf, 2018.

[33] FAO, “Food Outlook: Major Sugar Exporters and Importers,” Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Sugar/Documents/sugar_assessment_food_outlook_may_2019.pdf, 2019.

[34] R. Bordonal, J. Carvalho, R. Lal, E. de Figueiredo, B. G. de Oliveira and N. La Scala Jr, “Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 38, no. 13, pp. 1-23, 2018.

[35] Statista, “Number of smartphone users in Brazil from 2017 to 2023(in millions),” Statista, February 2019.

[Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/285604/number-of-smartphone-users-in-brazil/#:~:text=In%20 2019%2C%20the%20number%20of,billion%20users%20by%20that%20time.. [Accessed 27 June 2020].

[36] L. Cortez, M. Leal and L. A. Nogueira, Sugarcane Bioenergy for Sustainable Development: Expanding Production in Latin America and Africa, New York: routledge: Taylor and Francis Group, 2019.

[37] A. Hira and P. T. Garcete, “Can Biofuels be an Engine for Growth in Small Developing Economies – The Case of Paraguay,” in Economic Effects of Biofuel Production, Rijeka, Croatia, InTech, 2011, pp. 105-128.

[38] S. Verma, Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production, Productivity, Cropping Intensity Income Generation, Ludhiana, India: Punjab Agricultural University, 2006.

[39] T. Faleye, J. A. Adebija and A. J. Farounbi, “Improving small-farm productivity through appropriate machinery in Nigeria,” International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 386-389, 2012.

[40] P. R. Neupane, T. N. Maraseni and M. Köhl, “The sugarcane industry in Nepal: Opportunities and challenges,” Environmental Development, vol. 24, pp. 86-98, 2017.

[41] A. K. Singh, N. KGS and P. Sharma, “Measurement of technical efficiency of climatic and non-climatic factors in sugarcane farming in Indian States: Use of stochastic frontier production function approach,” Discovery Journals: Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 19, pp. 150-166, 2019.

[42] Statista, “Global average selling price of smartphones from 2010 to 2019 (in U.S. dollars),” Statista, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/484583/global-average-selling-price-smartphones/. [Accessed 8th July 2020].

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

[43] “Evidence is mounting that people are fed up with the sky-high cost of smartphones, and it’s sparking a massive change in the industry,” Business Insider Australia, 13th December 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www. businessinsider.com.au/smartphone-cost-expensive-1000-apple-samsung-google-5g-change-2019-12?r=US&IR=T. [Accessed 8th July 2020].

[44] B. Sims and J. Kienzle, “Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization for Smallholders: What Is It and How Can We Implement It?,” Agriculture, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 50, 2017.

[45] A. R. Sjauw-Koen-Fa, V. Block and S. Omta, “Critical Success Factors for Smallholder Inclusion in High Value-Adding Supply Chains by Food & Agribusiness Multinational Enterprises,” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 83-112, 2016.

[46] M. Ros-Tonen, V. Bitzer, A. Laven, D. O. de Leth, Y. V. Leynseele and A. Vos, “Conceptualizing inclusiveness of smallholder valuechain integration,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 41, pp. 10-17, 2019.

[47] G. Martiniello and R. Azambuja, “Contracting Sugarcane Farming in Global Agricultural Value Chains in Eastern Africa: Debates, Dynamics, and Struggles,” Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, vol. 8, no. 1-2, pp.

208-231, 2019.

[48] C. A. Christofoletti, J. P. Escher, J. E. Correia, J. Marinho and C. S. Fontanetti, “Sugarcane vinasse: Environmental implications of its use,” Waste Management, vol. 33, pp. 2752-2761, 2013.

[49] J. Goldemberg, S. T. Coelho and P. Guardabassi, “The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane,” Energy Policy, vol. 36, pp. 2086-2097, 2008.

[50] IFAD & UNEP, “Smallholders, food security, and the environment,” International Fund for Agricultural Development & United Nations Environment Programme, https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39135645/smallholders_report.pdf/133e8903-0204-4e7d-a780-bca847933f2e, 2013.

[51] M. S. Mnisi and C. S. Dlamini, “The concept of sustainable sugarcane production: Global, African and South African perceptions,” African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 7, no. 31, pp. 4337-4343, 2012.

[52] I. G. Kerdan, S. Giarola, F. Jalil-Vega and A. Hawkes, “Carbon Sequestration Potential from Large-Scale Reforestation and Sugarcane Expansion on Abandoned Agricultural Lands in Brazil,” Polytechnica, vol. 2, pp. 9-25, 2019.

Image Attributions Under Creative Commons Terms and Conditions for Permitted Royalty-free use Sugarcane Icon – Created by Marie Van den Broeck from the Noun Project Cover Image Rainforest by Chris Barron – Permitted under Creative Commons licence to “Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.” Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ gooberam/501839915/in/photolist-Lm4wk-yjRAr-b72HRt-UQJ7ky-5T8WQv-Lm5Xn-Lm4wD-Lm4wK-Lm4wc-cnNCouNmyq35-4qJhyg-UQJ9vW-sZr23G-3gh7sS-63dKWc-CZ2PrS-b72M4P-cM4oU-s9Baz-5w8PZh-f7opRY-Lid9Z-FBggn5w4vBD-4GEywK-f7orTb-4txkzy-Lm5Y6-BPMQmk-2iLiz-6mzrEb-6mzsgN-7i9QbS-tv4y3-nszouK-ycaL71-z9ccpp-6mvhzP6mzpHf-6mzp4C-6mvgUH-z6RGMf-za2spe-z8bj5U-za3yka-z9bjPB-ycjvY2-yRACrQ-z9cPQv/ Other Cover Image Icons – “All icons are free for any personal and commercial use” - https://uxwing.com/ Icons made within the essay have been custom made, unless referenced otherwise, by the author for this work and to be shared publicly with IFAMA.

69

Ruchir Mathur Birla Institute of Technology and Science, India (click to play video)

Undergraduate INDIVIDUAL Category 2nd Place

Food for the Future: How can the sustainability, productivity and market access of smallholder sugarcane farmers be improved?

“My car even has an Air conditioner!”, exclaimed Harshit, as a one-sided enthusiastic discussion by him ensued. “My father can drop you home today in my new car”, continued Harshit, as he proceeded to explain every specification of his newly bought car. Manav, listening scrupulously, got excited for this opportunity of traveling in a luxurious vehicle. No sooner did the bell ring than he ran towards the school gate. He jumped into the SUV like it was a trampoline.

Cruising through the large green fields of rice, which were owned by Harshit’s father, Manav wondered when his family could afford such a car.

Already engrossed with thoughts of drifting in his imaginary car with his school crush, Manav sat on the ground with his mother for lunch. “When will we buy a car, Maa ?” asked Manav inquisitively.

“When you will buy it, after completing your education and getting a job in the city.”, replied his mother who was preoccupied with lighting the gas stove.

“But Maa, Harshits father is also a farmer, so why can’t we buy a car !” Manav rebutted.

Not satisfied with the grueling silence from mom, he adds “ Harshit brings a packet of juice, which contains a lot of sugar. And that packet is expensive. So dad must be selling the sugarcane at a good price now” “Get your mind off these things and call your brother for lunch”, replied Maa in frustration.

Rubbishing the thoughts of buying a car, Manav proceeded to call his brother.

Imagine having a livelihood where all of your aspirations depend on a single commodity, sugarcane. For thousands of families of Smallholder Sugarcane (SSG for the sake of simplicity !) farmers, like that of Manav, this fact clings onto them for their lifetimes.

71

Problems and urgency The above-mentioned story isn’t fiction, but a fragment of the larger harsh reality that these farmers and their families face. Elaborating further on it, SSG farmers encounter two major issues : Productivity issues (On Field) and Commercial issues (Off-field), with both of them being interrelated.

Productivity challenges Major problem that SSGs face on farms is the low yield of sugarcane. Low yield becomes a major deterrent in earning more income because input expenditure increases while low sugar recovery leads to delayed incoming payments from the sugar mills.

1

Chandrashila Gaikwad , Shweta Jadhav, Feb. 2017. CHALLENGES FACED BY SUGARCANE MILLS AND FARMERS IN INDIA. International Journal of Science Technology and Management.

2

Tena, Esayas & Mekbib, Firew & Shimelis, Hussein & Mwadzingeni, Learnmore. (2016). Sugarcane production under smallholder farming systems: Farmers preferred traits, constraints and genetic resources. Cogent Food Agriculture. 2. 1191323.

3

Dal Belo Leite, JoĂŁo & Langa, Felix & Maltitz, Graham & Leal, Manoel & Cortez, Luis. (2020). Sugarcane outgrower schemes model: Friend or foe? A question for smallholder farmers in Mozambique. World Development Perspectives. 100232. 10.1016/j wdp.2020.100232.

Birla Institute of Technology and Science, India

Examining it further, various researches conducted in India1 and Africa2,3 found the following challenges:

Commercial challenges Commercial - There are several indirect (off-field) factors that threaten the sustainability of SSG farmers. For a worthwhile analysis, it is better to start from a farmer’s perspective.

Lack of immediate availability of credit/loans : Delayed payments by sugar mills and high-interest rate by commission agents force the already cash-crunched SSG farmers to delay crop management activities such as the application of fertilizers, weedicides, chemicals, etc. This mismanagement severely reduces the yield.

Lack of technical guidance and support : In many countries, the government has neglected the research and development for better yield of sugarcane. Instead, many of them have focused4 on researching and developing wheat, rice, and other bumper crops.

For sugarcane, they have diverted the burden of providing technical assistance to the sugar mills. Under Outgrower schemes (or contract farming), sugar mills are responsible for guiding the farmers in producing the optimum yield of sugarcane and buying it later.

But it has failed to take a leap forward.

There remains an aspect of information asymmetry5 between the farmers and the mills. Farmers feel that there is no transparency in their partnership. Many crucial details such as crop inputs (fertilizer, weeding,etc.), total production, etc. are not reported properly by the mills. Farmers’ suspicions are strengthened when they realize the disparity between the sugar prices in the market and the selling price for their sugarcane.

But sugar mills cannot be outrightly blamed. Their efforts are hampered by their uneconomical size, obsolete machinery, low sugar recovery rate, and uneven trends in sugar demand. All these factors raise the cost of production, which leaves little room for payment to the SSG farmers.

This cash crunch of sugar mills further hampers the progress of providing technical knowledge, transportation, and developmental facilities such as schools and hospitals to the SSG farmers. Ultimately, the SSG farmers are abandoned not only by the government but also by their buyers, i.e. sugar mills.

Considering their contribution, neglecting SSG farmers definitely pose a threat to the global food security.

4

Structural injustice in Sugarcane Agriculture .Vineet John Samuel, Oxfam India Blog(2018).

5

Dal Belo Leite, JoĂŁo & Langa, Felix & Maltitz, Graham & Leal, Manoel & Cortez, Luis. (2020). Sugarcane outgrower schemes model: Friend or foe? A question for smallholder farmers in Mozambique. World Development Perspectives. 100232.

10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100232.

73

Proposed solution Approaching pragmatically the complex net of troubles faced by SSG farmers, we need to realize that certain aspects cannot be solved outrightly. Nevertheless, the urgency of these issues requires us to innovate solutions that at least provide immediate assistance to the farmers.

So I propose an organization, Sweet Vision. Combining Agri tech and microfinance expertise, our aim is to envision a self-sustainable future for SSG farmers and work towards building it.

Value proposition Farmers can avail of a periodic subscription of our services, which include instant loans, access to crop input retailers, specialized recommendations for the crop management, and multiple market-linked buyers.

Short-term plan As identified earlier, delayed access to loans causes many productivity issues. So Sweet Vision would provide instant cashless loans to these farmers through a virtual credit card.

This credit card would be a part of a bigger account. Using this account, farmers can promptly purchase quality seeds, fertilizers, and other crop management items from the offline retail partners of Sweet Vision. After ordering, the amount would be deducted from the credit limit.

Furthermore, Sweet Vision would only charge interest on the used credit limit. To ensure fair credit distribution and reduce the chances of being an NPA (non-performing asset), we would consider various parameters such as personal background, income, assets, and agricultural profile to generate their creditworthiness (credit limit).

To enhance market access, we would tie-up with multiple market buyers. For sugarcane, not only sugar mills, but other potential buyers for Jaggery, Molasses, and other useful agro-residues would be available on our platform. This would help farmers as well as sugar mills reduce their dependence on the sugar industry for sales and open other market prospects such as the biofuel6 industry. Multiple buyers would also ensure the best price to the farmer for their produce.

Keeping in mind their financial capabilities, flexible repayment options would be provided.

For instance, their credit could also be repaid by selling sugarcane to our linked market buyers. The money earned from selling their crops would automatically reduce their outstanding debt. Hence it would not only save the farmers from the hardship of cash payments but also help the organization in the collection of debts.

6

Talukdar, Diganggana & Verma, Deepak & Malik, Kamla & Mohapatra, Balaram & Yulianto, Roni. (2017). Sugarcane as a Potential Biofuel Crop. 10.1007/978-3-319-58946-6_9.

Birla Institute of Technology and Science, India

Apart from providing financial assistance, we would also provide technical assistance to the farmers. Using past records of the crop, agro-climatic conditions, soil tests, and financial considerations, farmers would be informed of the adequate amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and other management items that they require.

Through data analytics techniques7 and Artificial intelligence (AI), relevant data points would be utilized in algorithms to generate decisions that would help farmers in optimal use of their resources, for instance irrigation.

This also helps the farmer in reducing input costs of fertilizers, weedicides, etc. Cost reduction and resource conservation can pave the way for monetary surplus creation. For instance, farmers can utilize this surplus value to employ intercropping or mixed cropping.

But things are easier said than done.

These solutions would face many issues, such as farmers’ lack of access to smartphones and web, resentment from the sugar industry because of increased market competition and inaccurate field data.

To address these challenges and other sustainability issues of SSG farmers, we need to work forward on a long term action plan.

7

Ullah, Asmat & Silalertruksa, Thapat & Pongpat, Patcharaporn & Gheewala, Shabbir. (2019). Efficiency analysis of sugarcane production systems in Thailand using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 238. 117877. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117877.

75

Long-term plan “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest” was rightly said by Benjamin Franklin.

Reliance on external support isn’t always feasible in the long run.

Ergo, education is the key to a self-dependent, sustainable future for SSG farmers.

To promote the overall development of the farmers in the long run, Sweet Vision aims at developing a PPP (Public-Private partnership). With the aid of the public sector, Sweet Vision will propose and implement new strategies and policies, directed at providing educational and other infrastructural facilities to the SSG farmers.

Among these policies and programs, Sweet Vision would propose the incorporation of a legal force in the Outgrower scheme, so that the information gap between farmers and mills is bridged. This should increase the transparency of the process which would not only motivate the farmers, but also the mills in terms of providing better guidance. Such an outcome would definitely uplift the sugar industry too.

Focusing on technical research and development, Sweet Vision would open special breeding centers across multiple locations for quality sugarcane plants. Plants with favorable traits such as high sucrose content, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, India

drought resistance, etc. would be cross-bred8 with the local sugarcane varieties of farmers. To hasten the process, tissue culture method could be practiced to screen out the desired plants from the breeding program.

These methods have shown promise9 in obtaining the desired sugarcane plants without being too complicated, and easily accessible to the smallholder farmers.

So, why Sweet Vision ?

Sweet Vision’s revenue sources would be - interest paid by farmers, commission charged from the retailers and output market partners. The cost of capital should be low initially, considering that most of the financing and technical assistance would be done digitally.The digital credit system would also ensure no diversion of funds, hence reducing chances of being an NPA (Non-performing asset). Loans would be disbursed by private lending partners. To ensure sustainability and growth of Sweet Vision, we aim to expand from sugarcane to other crops. Such expansion would also attract more investors.

8

Wijesuriya, A. & Perera, A.L.T. & Ariyawansha, Sandya & Manel, D. & Sunil, H.. (2012). Cross Predictions for Sugarcane Breeding Analysis of Biparental Families for Estimation of Heritabilities and Cross Prediction in Sugarcane (Saccharum Hybrid spp.) Breeding.

9

Ibrahim, Mohammad & Tolera, Belay & Aman, Jemal & Negi, Tadesse. (2019). Evaluation of Tissue Culture Raised Sugarcane Planting Materials against their Donor Conventional Seed Sources as Initial Source of Seed Cane at Tendaho Sugar Development Project, North-Eastern Ethiopia.

77

Despite numerous obstacles, we can always take inspiration from the smallholder sugarcane farmers. In spite of being dilapidated and poor, they continue to provide the rest of the world with sugarcane. Several industries, especially sugar, depend on them for job security while the whole world depends on them for food security.

Humanity and economics suggest that the need of the hour is to look after their well-being.

The current state of small Sugarcane farmers can be summed up by a thought-provoking African proverb-

“One who carries a pot of honey does not envy the sugarcane farmer”

Bibliography 1. Chandrashila Gaikwad , Shweta Jadhav, Feb. 2017. Challenges faced by sugar mills and farmers in India. International Journal of Science Technology and Management 2. Tena, Esayas & Mekbib, Firew & Shimelis, Hussein & Mwadzingeni, Learnmore. (2016). Sugarcane production under smallholder farming systems: Farmers preferred traits, constraints, and genetic resources. Cogent Food Agriculture. 2. 1191323.

3. Dal Belo Leite, João & Langa, Felix & Maltitz, Graham & Leal, Manoel & Cortez, Luis. (2020). Sugarcane outgrower schemes model: Friend or foe? A question for smallholder farmers in Mozambique. World Development Perspectives. 100232. 10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100232 .

4. Structural injustice in Sugarcane Agriculture .Vineet John Samuel, Oxfam India Blog(2018).

5. Talukdar, Diganggana & Verma, Deepak & Malik, Kamla & Mohapatra, Balaram & Yulianto, Roni. (2017). Sugarcane as a Potential Biofuel Crop. 10.1007/978-3-319-58946-6_9.

6. Ullah, Asmat & Silalertruksa, Thapat & Pongpat, Patcharaporn & Gheewala, Shabbir. (2019). Efficiency analysis of sugarcane production systems in Thailand using data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 238.

117877. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117877.

7. Wijesuriya, A. & Perera, A.L.T. & Ariyawansha, Sandya & Manel, D. & Sunil, H.. (2012). Cross Predictions for Sugarcane Breeding Analysis of Biparental Families for Estimation of Heritabilities and Cross Prediction in Sugarcane (Saccharum Hybrid spp.) Breeding.

8. Ibrahim, Mohammad & Tolera, Belay & Aman, Jemal & Negi, Tadesse. (2019). Evaluation of Tissue Culture Raised Sugarcane Planting Materials against their Donor Conventional Seed Sources as Initial Source of Seed Cane at Tendaho Sugar Development Project, North-Eastern Ethiopia.

Birla Institute of Technology and Science, India

79

www.ifama.org