Integrating neglected crops in global
value chains: the case of quinoa in
Southern Bolivia
Enrico Avitabile
RomaTre University
1. Background1.1 Rationale and motivation1.2 Introduction to the case study
2. Quinoa value chain in Southern Altopiano in Bolivia2.1 Farmers wellbeing2.2 Upgrading 2.3 Governance
3. Conclusions3.1. Different development models for quinoa’s
future
BACKGROUNDRationale and Motivation
Recent food crisis contributed to deepening the debate about food
security and the right of people to define their own food systems.
Increasing interest has been shown regarding how so-called neglected
and underutilized species (NUS) can contribute to the fight against
malnutrition and poverty.
But what happens when one of these NUS becomes rapidly and
increasingly integrated in global markets ?
Case Study:
Quinoa, an Andean grain cultivated essentially in Bolivia, Peru and
Ecuador
Quinoa has been “rediscovered” as a “superfood” because of its high
nutritional values
FAO (2011), Rojas et al. (2010), Scoones (1998)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Pro
du
cti
on
- E
xp
ort
(t)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Pri
ce
(U
SD
/t)
5000
B.C.
First evidences
of quinoa
cultivation
1492
New food
regimes –
qiunoa
becomes
“neglected”
Anni
‘70
New quinoa production
systems
Anni
‘80
First producer
organizations are
established
Anni
‘90
First private firms
Anni
2000
Quinoa boom
BACKGROUNDQuinoa figures in Bolivia
Area cultivada y Rendimento
010000200003000040000500006000070000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Ha
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Re
nd
ime
nto
Area Cultivada
Rendimento
AVSF, (2009), Caceres et al. (2007), FAUTAPO (2011), Laguna (2011), Medrano & Torrico (2009), Ofstehage (2012), Rojas et al.
(2004) Rojas et al. (2010)
Killer quinoa?
Time to debunk these
urban food mythsQuinoa: good, evil,
or just really complicated?
------ Production
------ Export
------ Price
BACKGROUNDPresentation of case study
Questions:
Q1: How quinoa boom affected farmers wellbeing ?
Q2: How quinoa VC changed ? And what the consequences ?
FIELDWORK INFORMATIONS
2012 November – 2013 April
Interviews with privileged speakers (market map)
Farmers survey
Semi-structured interviews with agroindustrial players (private firms and producer organizations)
Workshop with exporters and international buyers
BACKGRUNDSouthern Altopiano characteristics
Self -consumption
Input
providers
Quinoa
farmersSelling
- Associated
- Indipendents
- Residentes
- Permamentes
Consultant/
Technical
assistance
Informal Intermediates
Private firms
Producers Associations
Domestic Market
Export Market
(US, EU, Asia…)
-Retailers
-Restaurants
-Aid programs
-Public
Procurement
-Organic
-Fair trade
-Mainstream
markets
Certifiers
Smuggling - Peru
Trade Chambers of quinoa
exporting organizations
Government (local and central level, formal and informal institutions)
FARMERS
BUYERS
AGRO-
INDUSTRY
Informal markets
2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS
Farmers wellbeing
Dimension Indicators Comments
Economic
•Incomes
•Credit (access and
utilization)
•Increasing specialization
•Price volatility
•Cost of production rising
•Inequalities increasing
Social
•Education
•Basic assets
•Auto-evaluation wellbeing
•Presence of large governmental
infrastructural programs
Nutrition
•Food consumption score
•Food expenditure
•Quinoa consumption
•Role of intermediates
•Need of better understanding about urban
consumption drivers
Environment •Soil erosion
•Lama/Ha ratio
•Biodiversity loss
•Need of better understanding of
“underutilization” of biodiversity
Cultural identity?•No food uses
•Variety preferences
•Traditional institutions
(Ayni)
•Reverse migration flows
2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS
Upgrading
KEY QUESTIONS: Technology improvement
Reorganizing activities within the V.C.
Identify areas to increase added value
EVIDENCE: Social and economic improvements
Organic certification
Increasing distances between farmers and buyers
Decrease in farmers associations market share
Low development of agro-industry
Emerging differences between farmers associations
and private firms value chains
2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS
Upgrading
(Lack of ) Agroindustry development:
Linkages: Better biodiversity utilization
Diminishing pressure over production increase
Development of new products more appropriated to
domestic market
The “private firms” chain seems to be more active in this field:
- Larger financial capacity
- Better networking activity
- More active in differentiating market opportunities
2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS
Governance
KEY QUESTIONS: Identify formal and informal rules
Identify who establishes the rules and monitor their
enforcement
Effectiveness of existing rules
EVIDENCE: Change in rules is associated to the shift from
“producer-driven” toward “buyer-driven”
Increasing use of codified standards
Traditional rules (institutions) are more effective for
some use (e.g. land conflicts)
2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS
Governance
Changes (and conflicts) about governance reflect in low effectiveness to
face questions emerging after the quinoa boom
Examples:
Organic vs. sustainable Buyers are interested in organic
production, but this by itself in not able to
ensure sustainable production over time
Equilibrium between agricultural activity
and other economic activity (e.g. lama
breeding)
Some standards (e.g. fair trade) have
prescriptions about it, but they are few
effective
Price management It is now “fair” for farmers; too high for
private firms and buyers; presence of
different expectations for public policy in
this area
Governance as driving From producer-driven to buyer driven
Governance as linking From relational to market structure
Governance as normalizing From domestic-market to civic-market convention
Ponte and Sturgeon (2014), Gereffi (1994), Gereffi, Humphrey and Sturgeon (2005), Ponte and Gibbon (2005)
Product focused model Farmer focused model
Governance
driving
Buyer Producer
Price level Low High (but associated with public policy to
promote domestic consumption)
Product policy Standardization Specification and diversification
Producer
specialization
Yes No (do not detach quinoa VC from other
economic activity, e.g. lama VC)
Policy
demanded
Support to increase productivity Support to domestic market
Market priority Exports Domestic
Risks Environmental sustainability, low
productivity, new country entries
(suppliers)
No rise in domestic consumption
(and resulting price and income decrease)
3. CONCLUSION
Different development models for future of quinoa
3. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Commodity model vs. Food sovereignty model
The establishment and development of a quinoa GVC was
fundamental to enhance social and economic conditions for
Bolivian farmers.
Now players (not only farmers) have to face new risks
deriving from this success itself (social and environmental
sustainability)
Changes and conflicts along the VC reveal different
strategies to manage this new situation
Public policy is the missing player in quinoa story
THANKS !