1. Inclusion, empowerment, and the social
impact of Ecuador’s native potato value chain
International Food Security Dialogue 2014: “Enhancing Food Production,
Gender Equity, and Nutritional Security in a Changing World”
May 2014
Leah Buckley

2. Overview
 Ecuador’s Native PotatoValue Chain
 Study Objectives
 Methodology
 Characterisation of Participants
 Overview of results
 Challenges and Recommendations
 Conclusion

3. Ecuador’s Native PotatoValue Chain
 CSR and pro-poor value chain development can help to realign
market activities to improve the participation of marginalized
actors and the benefits they receive.
 However, they often fail to fully integrate farmers as active
stakeholders in the value chain
 Inalproces: Export-oriented smallholder-linked enterprise,
produces chips made from two native potato varieties (yana
shungo and puca shungo), sourced from smallholder farmers in the
Ecuadorian highlands
 CONPAPA-Tungurahua (Consortium of Smallholder Potato
Producers): association of smallholder potato farmers, and sole
supplier of the native potatoes used by Inalproces

4. Study Objectives
 To understand and evaluate the perceptions of benefits among smallholder
farmers, with respect to their participation in the native potato value chain.
 To relate the results with those of other value chain actors, with an
emphasis on value chain governance, participation, trust, and gender
empowerment, to view how the value chain can maximize its contribution
to poverty alleviation and food security in the Ecuadorian highlands.
Research Questions:
1) What are the benefits associated with participation in the value chain,
according to the perceptions of the farmers?Are there areas that need
greater attention to strengthen inclusion among farmers?
2) Is participation in the value chain related to the level of empowerment
among women?
3) What options are identified by value chain actors to improve
organizational/operative capacity, innovation, and to take advantage
of new market opportunities?

5. Methodology
 Literature Review
 Field work:
 80 surveys with participants and non-
participants of CONPAPA and the value
chain
 Focus groups with CONPAPA and non-
participants to explore gender, minimum
assets, barriers to entry
 Data Analysis
 Collective Action Framework (Devaux et al.
2009); adapted to strengthen its
representation of inclusive governance,
gender, and social impacts (Thiele et al.
2011; IFPRI 2012; Donovan & Stoian 2012)
 Excel, SPSS
 Recommendations & Final Report

6. Characterization of participating farmers
 14 women, 23 men
 Averages:
 Age: 46 years
 Size of plot dedicated to native potato
production: 0.5 hectares
 Time involved with value chain: 1.5 years
 64% report a male head of household
 84% have titled land
 51% of titled land is in the name of both
spouses; 41% the man; 5% the woman; 3%
parents
 All farmers combine potato cultivation with
other agricultural and non-agricultural
activities

7. Result 1.1. Benefits perceived through
participation in the value chain
 Fixed and higher price offered by
Inalproces, the guaranteed market
 83% of men and 71% of women have
experienced an increase in income
 New income has been invested in potato
cultivation, seed purchase, and spending in
health, education, and nutrition
 Participants recorded higher levels of
diversification in their daily diets than non-
participants
 95% of farmers expressed an interest in
continuing to cultivate native potatoes
However…
• Only 65% of farmers are satisfied with
the price they currently receive for
the native potatoes.
• Farmers still consider native potatoes
risky because of the high quality
requirements and absence of markets
outside of Inalproces

8. Result 1.2.Trust
Index included questions such as:
 Do you feel that the information
that you receive is: a) Complete;
b)Transparent; c) On time?
 Do you think that Inalproces is a
just enterprise?
Lack of trust is the result of poor
communication and
misunderstanding:
 CONPAPA’s presence and
relationship with farmers is much
stronger and more direct
 Inalproces’ high quality demands
are not met with technical, on-the-
ground support, i.e. confusion of
climatic damages with disease
 Inalproces feels that CONPAPA
does not always communicate to
farmers (i.e. small potatoes)
• Levels of trust in CONPAPA
were higher than Inalproces
(Index average 0.79 versus
0.68)
• A significant relationship was
found between levels of trust
and plot of land dedicated to
native potato production

9. Result 1.3. Governance
WithinValue Chain:
 Farmers are not just suppliers but participate
and are informed in decision-making, contract
negotiations, and the activities of Inalproces
Within CONPAPA:
 Monthly obligatory meetings communicate the
activities of the consortium
 Internal and external decisions are always
approved by the assembly of members
 87% of farmers participate always or almost
always in meetings and workshops
 84% of farmers report feeling that they have
a space to express their needs and opinions
Although there are high levels
of participation in general…
• Farmers feel the meetings are
time consuming, especially
considering transportation, and
are not always productive
• Farmer engage less during
decision-making
• Gaps in communication: 30% of
farmers perceive that the
information they receive is not
complete, transparent, and does
not arrive on time

10. Result 1.4. Participation
Factors that limit farmers from
increasing production
 Only one market – Inalproces
 Limited access to land, credit,
labour, technical support
 Risks of loss of harvest: climatic
factors, quality requirements and
post-harvest care
 Women commented:
 Physically demanding and more
time consuming than other crops
 Income diversification important
to guarantee income and food
security
Barriers to entry for non-
participants
 Minimum knowledge of
CONPAPA, the value chain, and
rules of entry
 Lack of irrigation systems
 High costs of inputs associated
with potato production
 No access to technical assistance
to achieve high quality product
 Lack of experience organizing and
directing a formal agricultural
association

11. Result 1.5. Gender, participation, and
empowerment
 ‘Feminization of agriculture’ in Latin America
(Deere 2005)
 Examined women’s empowerment through
questions on:
 Decision-making in household and farm
activities
 Participation and leadership roles in
associations
 Recognition of role in potato production
 Women involved in CONPAPA have higher
levels of participation in decisions related to
farm activities
 High levels of participation in CONPAPA and
other associative activities
 Women are recognized for their role in potato
cultivation, but are not remunerated equally
However…
• Women find it more difficult to
participate in meetings and workshops
• There are significant differences
between women from different
communities

12. Objective 2: Business skills capacity
 The market for native potatoes is
increasing, but there is insufficient
supply to meet the demand
 There is interest among farmers to
participate in business skills capacity
workshops (89%), especially
commercialization (70%)
 However…
 CONPAPA lacks a business culture
 The concentration of responsibility
prevents the consortium from
successfully engaging in other
activities, i.e. innovation.

13. CHALLENGESAND RECOMMENDATIONS

14. Challenge 1: Improve the efficiency of the value
chain, with the capacity for growth
Challenge:
Communication between actors is not sufficiently clear nor structured.
This provokes confusion, doubt and misunderstanding which undermine
the value chain’s efficiency
Recommendations:
 An improved and structured system of communication for farmers,
using tools and materials that are accessible to farmers. Reinforce
these materials periodically during meetings and workshops
 Improve collaboration and plan specific objectives to improve
innovation, including workshops, monitoring and evaluation, etc.
 Workshops on governance structures, the roles of each value chain
actor, and the importance of active participation

15. Challenge 2: Increase production and quality to
respond to market demands
Challenge:
Inalproces feels frustrated that their expansion is limited despite
growing international demand. Farmers say they do not have the
resources necessary to increase production.The sentiment of risk and
insecurity is prevalent.
Recommendations:
 Support systems for investment and production, including:
 Coordination between actors to improve quality and post-harvest
management
 Agricultural technician to support quality control
 Loans/system of credit to help with investment

16. Challenge 3: Growth in value chain through
increase in participating farmers
Challenge:
Despite interest among non-participants, neither CONPAPA nor Inalproces
have concrete strategies to increase participation. Further, there is limited
awareness of the circumstances of non-participants, especially women,
that could otherwise open doors to new farmers
Recommendation (CONPAPA and Inalproces)
 Information campaign
 System of incentives through a system of traceability, in conjunction with
capacitation, monitoring and evaluation, awards
Recommendations (Support Institutions):
 Undertake a study to understand livelihood strategies adopted by non-
participants, especially women
 Develop a gender strategy to confront barriers to entry and minimum
assets to participate in value chains and new market opportunities

17. Challenge 4: Business Capacity
Challenge:
 Absence of a business culture within CONPAPA limits their ability to develop
and take advantage of new markets for native potatoes
 The concentration of responsibility in one person, and the absence of a
dedicated resource to manage business development in CONPAPA, inhibits
their organizational development and prevents their reach and expansion
Recommendations:
 CONPAPA:Collaborate with universities and institutions to receive interns or
professionals in business and marketing
 Workshops (with the support of business institutes) to build capacity in
business and organizational development

18. Opportunity: Farmers Business School
 FBS is a method of “learning by
doing” to improve business
capacity among farmers
 The focus is flexible, depending
on the needs and interests of
farmers in a particular region
 CIP has demonstrated experience
and success with the FBS

19. Possible modules of FBS in the native
potato value chain
1)Workshops on value chain analysis and inclusive governance:
internal analysis, identification of best practices, lessons and
key actions for success, etc.
2)HumanCapital development: Improve coordination through
systems of communication and diffusion of information
3) System of quality and monitoring: How to structure a
system of traceability, through capacitation, quality control,
and incentives for high quality production
4) Business capacity development at distinct levels: Principals and
processes to analyze the internal potential, and take advantage of new
markets through innovation

20. Thank you