Think Tank

The Technical Review Panel conference was impressive.  The brightest of the bright squirreled away in this hotel to seriously take apart the World Food Programme’s ‘Purchase for Progress’ project, put back together or offer a different direction.

Purchase for Progress is that wing of the World Food Programme trying, in twenty countries, to assist small hold farms (~.5 – 2-3 hectares hectares) to increase their quality and quantity of production and to increase their income by selling into new, more profitable and reliable markets.   The World Food Programme  ought to be and wants to be just one market for small farm grain; they purchase at fair market value, not at inflated prices which lead to unrealistic smallholder expectations. With expertise offered through what now ought to be called ‘Partners for Progress’, farmers are learning to work together to aggregate their crops and to sell to more lucrative markets where they are less at the mercy of  traders who, by buying directly from the field, take advantage of the immediate post harvest cash needs of small growers working in isolation.

This United Nations’ agency is in the business of food procurement, and they must appeal  to the likes of Canada or the European Community for funding in order to purchase this food.  Smallholders supply but a fraction and the consistent availability of quality product is paramount when meeting the challenges of feeding refugees.

Assessing this job is being carried out by Purchase for Progress, and measuring its effectiveness is what the Review Panel came to explore for four rather intense days.  The question most non-government organisations now ask themselves is: How to we quantify our efforts to improve the lives of beneficiaries and how do we ‘partner’ with these beneficiaries so we ‘hand-up’ rather than ‘hand-out’?  So important is this issue that one day of the conference was given over to the statisticians; donor’s are demanding this.

[The one day grower work shop held last month cost ~$2,000.  My estimate for the Technical Review Panel upwards of ~$80,000 and the panel members did not receive a per diem.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Think Tank

  1. loumdel says:

    Did the Think Tank result into any actionables?

    • wadawson says:

      L, I’d guess the report has yet to be written and submitted to WFP, but, yes, the idea would be to ACT on the recommendations, at least I sincerely hope so. Slow process though, especially with a large and bureaucratic organisation.
      Are you able to read the comments Louise?

  2. loumdel says:

    yes I can read the comments 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s