Farmers’ benefits from HGSF programmes

Despite some risks, Carmen Burbano de Lara believes that government-regulated school feeding programmes sourced from local agricultural production can be worthwhile for small scale farmers. Firstly, because “the aggregate amount of food needed for a national school feeding program represents an important demand for small scale farmers. Their sales to the program can increase their income.” Modeling exercises done by WFP, for example, support this. It estimates that “if the school feeding program in Kenya purchased maize from small scale farmers in high-potential areas, the annual incomes of 175,000 farmers would increase by US$50 per small scale farmer, which is not a small sum in low-income settings.”

Secondly, she believes that local procurement will increase the sustainability of school feeding programmes. In Ecuador for example, she notes, the government effectively took over school feeding programmes from the WFP. “Since the WFP handover in 2004, the Ecuadorian program benefits around 1.3 million children through government funding and management, with a food basket composed entirely of locally produced foods including rice, beans and a locally produced fortified maize-soya blend. Specific actions have been taken to ensure that small farmers can compete in national tenders by: decreasing the size of the tenders; training small farmers in preparation for tenders, cost analysis and storage; and allowing farmers to deliver their products at nearby locations.” The link to local production has increased public support to the program while keeping the cost low.

Despite these possible benefits, Carmen believes that government need to be aware of some potential difficulties of including local farmers, in order to improve the potential for success. To support small-scale farmers, “the agriculture sector at the central and local levels needs to be involved at all stages of program development and implementation”. In addition, governments need to ensure stable funding for the school feeding programme to minimalise affecting the stability of market linkages. Thirdly, procurement at a school level can cause difficulties, because decentralized programmes “have trouble making the link with small farmer production because of the reduced scale of their daily or weekly purchases”. Local caterers will “find ways of cutting costs often by buying the cheapest food in the market, which can be imported or of low quality”. Lastly, financial flows and payments are also an issue. “In Ghana, caterers are not immediately reimbursed so they purchase food items on credit. This arrangement is difficult for small scale farmers who cannot afford to wait two to three months to get paid for their produce. One solution to this problem could be to pre-finance the caterers so they are able to sign contracts with farmer associations.”

“In conclusion, school feeding programs that are linked to local production can be a powerful tool to ensure children go to school and are ready to learn, while also providing economic benefits to the household, to small scale farmers and local economies in general. Low income countries which are committed to making school feeding work should be supported by donors, development partners, the private sector and civil society. The potential benefits of school feeding are too big to ignore.”