Synthesis of WAW country case studies - Food and Agriculture ...

Synthesis of WAW country case studies

A World Agricultures Watch report

Synthesis of WAW country case studies

A World Agricultures Watch report

byMarie-Aude Even,

with the support of Silvia Saravia Matus

November 2014

This report produced by the WAW Secretariat (Marie-Aude Even, with the support of Silvia Saravia Matus, International Consultant), is the synthesis of five national reports and the lessons learned from the case studies from Argentina and Brazil. WAW Secretariat wishes to thank all the authors of these papers and all those who contributed to the discussion through the WAW Dgroup. France (2014). WAW, INRA, CIRAD. June 2014. Report Typology WAW: France, 28 p. (Magali Aubert. Jean-François Bélières, Céline Bignebat, Pierre-Marie Bosc, Sawsane Bouadjil, Rocard-Amèvi Kouwoaye, Philippe Perrier-Cornet, Isabelle Piot-Lepetit) Madagascar (2014). WAW, CITE, CIRAD. Février 2014. Rapport sur la typologie des exploitations agricoles à Madagascar, 31p. (Zazà Andriamiarana, Tahiry Andrianarisoa, Jean-François Bélières, Hélène David-Benz, Nathalie Rabemalanto, Patrick Rasolofo) Malawi (2014). WAW, FARM. July 2014. Developing a typology of agricultural holdings for improved policy design: a preliminary case study of Malawi, 61 p. (Mathilde Douillet, Angélique Toulon) Nicaragua (2014). WAW, IXMATI, CIRAD. May 2014. Classifying agricultural holdings in Nicaragua: Proposal of a typology based on the IV Agricultural Census, 77 p. (Sandrine Fréguin-Gresh, Francisco J. Pérez) Vietnam (2014). WAW, RUDEC, IPSARD, CIRAD, May 2014. International typology of agricultural holdings: The case of Vietnam, 30 p. (Hoang Vu Quang, Vu Hoang Van, Ta Van Tuong, Pham Duy Khanh, Nguyen Mai Huong, Guillaume Duteurtre) The case study on Argentina has been presented by Edith Obschatko, Procisur IICA. The case study on Brazil has been presented by Pr. Carlos Guanziroli, FURJ (Univ. Rio de Janeiro) and Paolo Groppo (FAO, NRL). Preparation of this synthesis report was made possible thanks to the financial and technical support of IFAD, FAO, CIRAD, France and FARM which financed the Malawi study. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of their Institutions.

Implementation of WAW International Typology: Synthesis Report of seven national case studies

(Argentina, Brazil, France, Madagascar, Malawi Nicaragua, Vietnam)

Executive Summary With the support of a small grant from IFAD which complemented financial and human support from FAO, France and CIRAD, WAW was able to elaborate and test an international typology of agricultural holdings. The latter is a core task under the WAW methodological framework in order to 1) facilitate the comparison between different holdings, and 2) address the monitoring of transformations to inform policy debate at country level. Both aspects shall contribute to enhance poverty analysis and policy formulation, highlighting stakes and the needs of the most vulnerable groups. At an initial stage the WAW typology was based on a single distinguishing criterion, the labor usage, thus identifying three main types of holdings: family, patronal and corporate. The family holding referred to farms with essentially family labor and occasional hired temporary labor. The patronal holding included farms with family and permanent hired labor (i.e. at least one permanent hired worker). The corporate holding comprised farms with exclusively hired permanent and temporary labor (CIRAD, 2013). After extended literature review, numerous consultations of WAW local and global partners and exploration of existing statistics (notably world program of census), the WAW international typology was delineated around three main distinguishing criteria: 1. usage of family vis à vis hired labor (as main operational criterion) 2. management and decision making process at the level of the holding (social criterion or legal status of the holder) 3. production and its relationship to self-consumption or market (production purpose criterion).

Draft typology combining the proposed criteria

Different types

Management type (based on variables on legal status and management)

Household sector, operated and managed by household

Corporate management

Hired manager

Labor (based on variables on family vs hired labor

Mostly family labor

Mixed family and hired labor or at least one permanent worker

Only hired labor

Commercialization (based on variables on declared purpose of production or indicators of production systems and sales vs production

Subsistence and Semi-

subsistence

Commercial Subsistence Semi-

subsistence1

Commercial Mainly Commercial

Implementation exercises were conducted in five countries (Madagascar, Malawi2 Vietnam, Nicaragua and France). These exercises were led by country partners often supported by CIRAD local teams, largely using census data at times complemented by existing household surveys. The case studies were developed on the basis of frequent national and local consultations. A series of E-conference and Dgroup discussions were organized on each of these five reports. Experiences were also shared along the findings of policy-relevant typology studies carried out in Argentina and Brazil. The overall WAW framework was also presented, analyzed and enriched along participation to International Year of Family Farming (IYFF) Regional Dialogues, International Working Group on Criteria for Family Farms, exchanges with the Agricultural Census Program, and participation to Workshop on Rural Transformations. The aim of the present report is to summarize the key results and lessons learnt along such typology developments, assessing notably the capacity of the framework to respond to the objectives that were set. This primarily refers to the ability of the typology findings to inform policy around family farmers (particularly holdings identified as the most vulnerable) and to monitor agricultural transformations. Consequently, the lessons cover from the purpose and orientation of the WAW international typology to data and methods, application of distinguishing criteria, descriptive analysis and recommendations for next steps. Similarly, particular questions on the approach to build international yet locally relevant types emerged. The latter, along with the

1 At first glance, the existence of a patronal farm under semi-subsistence may seem odd but this case mainly relates to

the situation where the household holding has diversified activities and farming operations may be subsidized by external livelihood sources. 2 Foundation FARM used WAW international typology approach to develop a study on Malawi household survey.

Family farms Patronal farms Corporate

farms

main lessons, will serve to produce a revised WAW framework and orientate priorities for the development of a tool kit aimed at an improved and effective typology implementation.

1. Purpose and orientation of the WAW international typology Throughout the different E-discussion and Dgroup exchanges the added-value and purpose of the typology to inform national policy on agricultural transformations was confirmed. It also became clear that the typology provided a helpful context in which to clarify concepts such as family farm (defined with notably criteria on the predominant use of family labor and management by the family) against smallholders and subsistence farms (with successful past experiences in Argentina and Brazil and rising national interest highlighted along regional dialogue on family farming). The proposed criteria and their combination also proved to be convergent with most family farm definitions used by FAO, International Working Group on Family Farming and their respective typologies. In other words, WAW holding concepts can be considered to be versatile enough to engage in further disaggregation of types incorporating both social and territorial aspects.

The initial objective of the typology which is to facilitate comparison between different types of holdings was confronted with difficulties in terms of diversity of data (and definitions used within the available data), context and local stakeholders’ priorities. Such prevented strict comparison of types across countries but further exchanges confirmed the interest on a common framework to facilitate learning from similar case studies. It became evident that lessons could be learnt not only in terms of methodology but also in terms of policy dialogue emanating from typology findings. Also, the comparison of dynamics and correlation among variables along a common conceptual framework led to a better understanding of overall transformations and concepts used along the WAW typology. The valorization of such work at international level was appreciated by country partners and found very useful to inform international process along IYFF and census development work, with overall interest expressed along international guidance, consolidated with the emergence of an international working group on criteria for definitions and typology of family farms, recognizing WAW importance.

In order to further reinforce countries’ capacities, WAW shall keep a strong role to facilitate the exchanges of experiences, consolidating resources to enable country typology development, organizing E-conferences, Dgroup exchanges, collective and national trainings and involvement of relevant experts. It is expected that based on such country work and network exchanges, WAW shall be able to make contributions at international level, i) along international statistics guidelines such as world program of census and global strategy for statistics and ii) along international policy processes such as IYFF, CFS dialogues, etc. Another potential area of contribution for the WAW international typology is related to the dialogue around rural transformations. As the WAW international typologies are reproduced from one period to another they are likely to play a key role in the monitoring of rural transformations at the micro or holding level. Given the distinguishing criteria, it will be possible to assess transformations regarding the labor usage and assess whether the agricultural sector is absorbing or releasing labor. The changes in the nature of management at holding level and use of hired labor will also reveal the evolution of different farm types and the extent to which non-household holdings are expanding, particularly given the recent wave of large-scale land transactions involving new players (such as biofuel companies, sovereign fund agencies, financial entities and agricultural enterprises as well). Lastly, changes in the output orientation could potentially reveal transformations in terms of market functioning in the rural areas while also exploring the extent of

self-consumption strategies among socially vulnerable holdings. In other words, the typology could give interesting insights on on-going economic transitions in the rural arena. One pending issue is whether the WAW typology shall push for the definition of internationally comparable types that go beyond the general definitions of family, patronal and corporate and include more specific categories such as: (semi)subsistence family farmers as in holdings only relying on their family labor force, with limited market integration and engaged in off-farm activities. That is, putting further attention to issues of diversified livelihoods which can well vary from one country context to another.

2. Data and Methods Data The main lessons regarding data availability to build the WAW international typology is that census is the only or main comprehensive source on holdings and structures but it also presents limitations. For instance, it is difficult to access census data and it has a very low frequency (i.e. every 10 years at best). The quality and reliability of census data is subject to a lengthy data cleaning and preparation process. The labor usage information is not part of the core item of census and this leads to a great variety of indicators from country to country. There is also a limited access to relevant descriptive variables (particularly those related to assets, production, income, on and off farm practices etc.). The latter is partially connected to the nature of the observation unit. The focus of census is on agricultural holdings and countries tend to introduce their own interpretation of what should be included and excluded in terms of census observation units. The world program of census provides a wide definition of agricultural holdings which include agricultural households. However, based also on cost limitations and data collection frameworks, countries apply their own definitions and thresholds, and rural households partially engaged in agriculture or below a minimal size, sale or production threshold tend to be excluded. This exclusion has implication in the cases where food security assessments in rural areas are undertaken. Based on the limitations mentioned above, a set of recommendations were proposed to the World Program of Agricultural Census and collaboration was initiated, with already first results and strong improvement in the new draft program of WCA2020. Such recommendations notably included notably a list of items considered essential to actually monitor transformations and review of their proposed definition (appendix 4) Ultimately, WAW will continue to work on recommendations and collaborations with existing data collection systems, at country level and global level (census, global strategy for improved statistics, LSMS etc.) as a way to improve identification of types through effective data availability. Based on such limitations which will not be addressed in the short term, other recommendations and issues raised during the e-conferences and Dgroup included an agreement on the added value of complementing census with other types of descriptive data, from other surveys such as household survey, administrative data, field assessment but also complementing census efforts with additional data collection efforts, for instance along field assessment (e.g. agrarian diagnostics) and expert consultations. Such may notably be compulsory for the corporate sector for which there is rarely dedicated statistical survey and which are often too few to be analysed through statistics.

Combining such different type of data requires methodological guidance to help address the challenges associated to the possibility of combining census with other surveys which may have different scope. Such combinations require methodological attention, highlighting gaps and recoupment, comparing the resulting types and checking their representativeness. Considering the raised issues around various definition of agricultural holding among countries and census, the WAW framework could include guidelines to help delineating “agricultural holding” to ensure that scope of assessment is similar across countries and data. It may require as well identification of specific sub-type which may not be found in census but may be considered important in rural transformation processes: e.g. fishermen, forestry producers, pastoralist, household with very limited production and mostly deriving income from other sources (for instance subsistence type found in Malawi household typology), partially or totally landless agricultural workers. etc.

Methods A variety of approaches were undertaken by the different country teams in order to build their respective WAW typology. They are described along summarized steps which include both lessons and challenges related to the WAW international typology implementation procedures. Step A: Selection of distinguishing and descriptive criteria’s indicators The selection of indicators that grasp the distinguishing criteria was based on the WAW proposal but additional descriptive variables were often included from existing literature review, stakeholders’ consultations and exploration of available database at country level. In the case of Brazil the core criteria was enhanced through preliminary agrarian diagnosis showcasing the realities of farm typologies in representative zones. Based on WAW original framework and experience of partners, other characterization criteria were chosen to evaluate different assets of the holding and their social, economic and environmental outcomes. The latter was largely based on the capital-asset framework and/or the diversified livelihood framework. The transformation of both the distinguishing and descriptive criteria into indicators ultimately depends on data availability and can lead to varied forms of indicators combining one or several variables. For instance labor usage and output orientation indicators were respectively calculated as the share of hired labor in the total labor use, or the share of sales on total production (Malawi, Vietnam conducted some of these calculations). In other cases the number of permanent hired workers was the main indicator to distinguish types and when there was no information on sales, qualitative information on the purpose of farm produce, the nature of the production system or the integration to different types markets (domestic vs export) were introduced. For the case of legal status, wide variety of context-specific definitions was also found and in low income countries farming activities were usually carried out in the informal sector. As a consequence, emerging indicators for the three main distinguishing criteria were not only distinct but thresholds were also context-specific. Similarly, the introduction of additional descriptive variables had a strong country-relevant component in its selection whether it was based on a capital-asset assessment, diversified livelihood framework or in terms of production systems. In other words, it can be argued that although the distinguishing or descriptive criteria is common for all practitioners the available indicators to represent these criteria vary according to national data which at the same time is driven by its particular economic and ecological contexts.

Step B: Building a cleaned and organized data base A key lesson from the typology implementation case studies is that data cleaning and screening is a very important but lengthy process which would require further methodological guidance. Such

step includes detection and elimination of missing values, detection of outliers (inconsistent observation which can be detected with minimum and maximum values), among other aspects (verification of answers by crossing different variables, etc.). Nicaragua, Brazil and Argentina provided several examples, showcasing the role of “verification criteria”, which were not necessarily highlighted among the “distinguishing” criteria but which can be used at this stage. For instance, size was not an initial distinguishing criterion in Brazil or Argentina, but they decided to come up with a maximum threshold in order to eliminate “outliers”. This was mainly due to the fact that in their studies they were focusing on “small” family farmers. Nicaragua compared the initial criterion on “purpose of orientation” with some size and production criteria, showing that some holdings declaring themselves as “subsistence” were actually specialized in cash crop and that their answer was guided by other interests and not the true condition of their holdings In other words, without adequate verification of variables and data, the real meaning of the selected indicators may be misleading. In the case of Nicaragua, the country team statistically tested the group with ANOVA just to confirm they were different between emerging types.

Step C: Building the types and categories Different methods were used to build types. Some case studies used one given distinguishing criterion (and its associated indicator) to establish a set of pre-determined categories (Nicaragua, Madagascar, Brazil, Malawi and Nicaragua). This criterion was often the labor-usage criterion. In other words, a deductive approach was preferred. Other case studies decided to first use statistical methods to group similar holdings, minimizing internal variance and maximizing differences among types i.e. cluster analysis on the three distinguishing criteria (Vietnam). France combined both approaches (the deductive and the statistical one) by starting with a basic labor-based categorization followed by a k-mean method to find a threshold of total waged labor to total labor in order to further distinguish patronal farms. The variety of methods to build types also relates to the way sub-types are handled and created. During E-conferences it was admitted that a limited number of categories is required for effectively grasping country typologies at the international level. The suggested number of types was a maximum of seven or eight types. This however, did not prevent country-level analysis that disaggregated types to the maximum detail possible considering different agro-ecological and administrative regions which could be useful for local-level policy discussions and also to further use such work for other thematic analysis. (such as the preparation of a farm atlas as produced in Argentina). In the attempt to bring about seven to eight national types that can be effectively presented and discussed at international level, modalities for type aggregation may be considered. Whether a statistical or deductive approach is used a limited number of types may be achieved if types are examined and re-allocated according to country-relevant knowledge. For instance, types with insufficient representation may be merged with other groups if their particular focus is not sufficiently relevant for policy intervention. Similarly, homogeneity within groups can be double checked. Stakeholders’ views can also serve to better allocate holdings across types. The latter is particularly relevant when unusual types of holdings emerge such as “corporate” farms with only hired labor but with a semi-subsistence orientation or family farms with corporate status etc..

Step D: Analyzing typology to inform policy Combination and correspondence between local analysis (closer to field and actual policy and intervention concerns) with national scale was found very important. Therefore it appears

important not only to provide national analysis, but also to provide more detailed analysis in selected territories, allowing the inclusion of other locally available information and expert knowledge which was deemed crucial to enrich the description of the types and ensure that emerging types were indeed relevant for policy analysis. In this respect, there is a need to provide regular information along the different types so that transformations at the holding and sectoral level may also be monitored. Different methods were used to assess the relevance of country typologies. These included extended descriptive analysis that included the assessment of different criteria and varied statistical tests, comparisons with other databases and existing typologies, stakeholders’ consultations and field work, analysis on the data gaps and recommendations for existing statistical systems. In most cases, the developed WAW typology proved relevant in the identification of vulnerable groups of agricultural holdings. Similarly, it became evident that for effective national policy orientation, the early involvement of stakeholders at local and national is indispensable (Madagascar and Vietnam experiences were good examples in this respect). Lastly, detailed database for further work and articulation with field and expert knowledge were deemed extremely valuable. According to Madagascar report authors, peasant and farmer organizations could be pivotal in the collection of additional data and insights to effective policy building.

Recommendations The overview of the summarized steps for typology building shows the need for overall guidance in the development and assessment of country typologies. Particular emphasis is placed upon the different sets of tools and best practices which can be adopted according to country capacities and data availability. Similarly, general guidelines could also enhance a common basis for comparison and exchanges. This information could be assembled in the form of a WAW toolkit for country typology implementation and development. A thorough discussion on the relative merits of a deductive versus a statistical approach is indeed a pending issue. This is also related to the selection of a one stage process (combining all criteria) vs a several stage process (criterion per criterion) in the identification of types. As argued, most country case study teams used a deductive approach, and proposed for each distinguishing criterion and its associated indicator a number of pre-determined categories building on the WAW framework and context analysis (Nicaragua, Madagascar, Brazil, Malawi and Nicaragua). Others used statistical approaches to regroup holding in a pre-defined number of types, minimizing internal variance and maximizing differences among types based on the proposed criteria (i.e. cluster analysis carried out in Vietnam). Both approaches have different pros and cons. The deductive approach can be done with simple excel tool and can enable a systemic and qualitative categorization but it can also be seen as subjective and can provide difficulties in aggregating types. On the other hand, the statistical approach enables to objectively differentiate holdings according to the criteria but requires quality statistical data3 and statistic skills. On the negative side, it will bring different types from one data set to another and may fail to take into account other aspects beyond the criteria. Similarly, the statistical combination may vary from one data set to another, making it potentially difficult to make comparison across data and time. Finally, approaches can be combined or may enrich each other, according to local means and interest. An

3 According to country practitioners in Nicaragua a consistent database was the key factor. Data quality tends to vary

depending on the data source. The control of data collection, inputting and cleaning tasks differed substantially between a regional, self-designed survey and a National database from a Public Institutions.

initial broad typology can be made with a deductive approach based on WAW framework, but then disaggregated further through statistical approach. Statistical analysis and empirical knowledge can help delineate most pertinent types, which can then be translated into a pre-determined categorization which can be more easily replicated Similarly, the relative importance of the different variables associated to both distinguishing as well as descriptive criteria requires further analysis, as in some country case studies descriptive variables were found to be particularly relevant in the assessment but also the intrinsic identification of types. There is therefore a strong need to reinforce the methodological approach as a way to improve results and thus better inform policy. Specific suggestions evolve around: i) the development of a set of roughly comparable indicators for analyzing types; ii) dynamic analysis of transformations in potential perspective with overall common conceptual framework; iii) review of qualitative and quantitative methods (trends of distribution and characteristics, correlation of variables, identification of drivers and roles of policy against different holdings, developing scenario etc.) to describe types; iv) territorial assessment and mapping of types; v) combining statistical analysis with field work and specific surveys. In this respect, interest was also expressed to review diversity of survey methods available and provide guidance on possible questionnaires. Lastly, the possibility to include international types which later evolve into national sub-types was mentioned as a way to further exploit typology findings.

3. Application of distinguishing criteria In the following part, we try to summarize the key lessons learnt and recommendations pertaining the three distinguishing criteria, building on the analysis of their relevance to respond to the initial objective as well as the feasibility of their use based on existing statistics. Labor usage In the WAW international typology, labor usage is an essential distinguishing criterion in the identification of family farms. In principle, farms are separated according to the way they employ family and hired labor. Family farms are those relying predominantly on family labor (hiring very few hired labor which is usually temporary hired labor) while patronal farms have a mixed approach. The corporate sector farm is relying only on hired labor. According to the initial CIRAD proposal, a potential threshold between family and patronal farms was based on the use of at least one permanent worker. However the country case studies revealed that such distinction was not always present in some census and if present, the data available was confronted to discussions on the incorporation of different degrees of temporary hired labor. The relative usage of family to hired labor proved more significant for Malawi and Vietnam. The latter reflects that there is a diversity of indicators (including the definition of permanent worker) for the application of this particular criterion and this depends on both context and data availability. For instance, in France the notion of Annual Working Unit (AWU) was used to approximate and convert time worked on the farm by different workers in terms of annual full time worked. Although this is widespread practice in the European Union countries it is less likely to be available in other country scenarios, particularly those of least developed economies where data collection may have stronger budgetary constraints. Another key limitation with the application of this criterion is the fact that, as stated, labor usage was not captured in the core variable of agricultural census. However, in line with the recommendations made by WAW, the new draft of the world program of census

considers labor as an essential item, suggesting to calculate the time worked for family and non family labor, with a concept close to the one used in the European Union4 Although it was found pertinent to use the labor-based criterion to enable discussion on family, patronal and corporate sector concepts, and mostly the resulting types had significant different assets, there is still great heterogeneity within types which requires further disaggregation. For instance, in Madagascar and Malawi family farm types were distinguished by highlighting those holdings not using any temporary hired labor since they appeared to be the least endowed of the sample. This distinction however, may be highly context specific since in other countries family holdings may well replace hired labor (temporary or permanent) with increased mechanization (which frequently stems from higher access to capital). Another form of disaggregation on the basis of labor usage referred to the identification of family holdings that were not only relying on their family labor but also selling their family work force (Malawi, Madagascar, Nicaragua). This suggests that the agricultural holding activities are not sufficient to engage family labor and alternative livelihoods are sought. One limitation to this approach is that production systems are varied in their reliance on permanent or temporary labor. In some cases, it may be possible to substitute permanent labor with a succession of hired workers, or the agricultural activities are seasonal and do not require labor all year round, making the permanent worker indicator somewhat useless. This gives further support to the choice of analyzing the relative presence of hired labor to overall labor force at the holding level. Yet it should be highlighted that there were also difficulties regarding estimates of family labor which was often not well captured (Nicaragua) or underestimated (France). There were also challenges to the way in which salaried family worker should be considered and even to how countries define permanent or temporary hired labor. Finally, some country partners highlighted an emerging trend towards contractual work / outsourced work (Vietnam, Brazil)

Recommendations A potential relevant indicator for the labor usage criterion would be to use an indicator on the total amount of outsourced work (hired work and contractual services) against total labor force. Such could be done in Annual Working Unit (AWU) or in cash equivalent. Another indicator on the quantity of permanent labor could also be used as additional distinguishing criterion or characterizing one. If the former is above 50% or the latter use a minimal quantity of permanent worker (1 or 2 for instance), then the holding would be closer to a patronal category. It is also necessary to make a distinction between patronal farms which are closer to the family farm model, with no hired manager and patronal farms closer to a corporate holding with an absentee land owner and at times non-family investors. This requires further disaggregation of holding types at the international level on the basis of labor usage but also other selected descriptive criteria. Ultimately, it is relevant to test the national relevance of separating within the family farm category by identifying i) a category of holdings not hiring any worker and/or mechanization services as these holdings may be subsidizing family activities and ii) a category of holdings selling their labor force on rural market as irregular jobs as these may represent the most vulnerable type in socio-economic terms.

Legal status / management

4 Draft for consultation http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-events/wca2020trm/en/

The use of the legal status of holder (i.e. who owns and operates the holding) was proposed to supplement and corroborate the labor usage distinguishing criterion, and notably to separate holdings between household and non-household/ corporate sector (i.e. those operated by legal entity). However, the application of the legal status or management criterion proved particularly challenging since there is a great diversity of terminology when it comes to legal status of holdings and their management styles. In other words, the direct application of the related indicator can be highly country-specific. In some cases, particular interpretations are necessary to make the distinctions between household and non-household holdings. In other situations the status may be related to other holding qualifications of farm (such as modern vs traditional in Madagascar or farm vs household in Vietnam). The latter presents difficulties when attempting to separate household and corporate sectors. The country case studies also highlighted difficulties to define “household sector” based on legal status and additional expertise was required to correctly allocate holdings. For instance, “enterprise status” could include both a corporate and a patronal farm. In other cases, “corporate status” may have implications on the ownership and operation of the farm or may simply refer to an obligation in terms of specific financial management. The latter makes the distinction of patronal farms with absentee owners and managed by a third party become closer to a non-household managed holding. Despite this particular example, corporate status seems to be a prerequisite to define non-household farms. Without it and on the basis of labor usage criterion only, we may incorporate a 2ha farm operated by family, oriented towards subsistence but relying fully on hired labor into this corporate sector (Madagascar and Malawi experience). In other words, introducing the legal status can serve to verify that holdings are correctly assigned first among the household and non-household sector and second among family, patronal and corporate farm categories, but adequate country-specific expertise is desired in order to make the right interpretations concerning legal statuses of holdings. Recommendations There is an added value of combining 100% hired labor indicator with the corporate status and presence of hired manager as a way to better delineate the corporate category. The “hired manager” indicator, however, could also be observed in the patronal farm types but would be a marker of a category very distinct from the family farm where the owner is also the manager. Interest was expressed to work further on “cooperative” types associating different family holdings and which can reach size and capital level close to corporate categories. This calls for an efficient sub-categorization of corporate or non-household holdings which due to data limitations has remained somewhat unexplored in the country case studies so far.

Output Orientation: The aim of this distinguishing criterion is to capture the purpose of production; whether it is aimed at sales or a significant part is also devoted to self-consumption. The latter would allow distinguishing commercial from semi-subsistence farms or farms aimed at self-consumption. The main challenge is that this criterion had a diversity of indicators across the country case studies. On one hand, doubts were raised on the reliability of self-declared “purpose of production” questions as suggested in census guidelines. On the other hand, there were practical difficulties in calculating overall production and the percentage of sales based on data. A proxy proposed by Nicaragua consisted in combining the type of production systems and its correlation to specific value chains based on country context. In their example, staples were mainly focused for domestic markets while cash crops were meant for exports.

There is also an issue of thresholds to be used in order to classify a farm as semi-subsistence. Some countries opted for 20% of sales while others referred to a 50% threshold (Davidova et al, 2013). Another limitation was associated to the fact that holdings may sell output under stress. Sales could therefore represent both a surplus but also dire cash needs during harvest. Another observation is that level of sales may change from year to year, making the categorization of farms under this criterion somewhat ephemeral. Consequently, there was interest in the building of a composite indicator which could capture the nature of the production system and the market orientation including the way family labor was allocated between on and off farm activities (proposal from Nicaragua case study).

Recommendations The main suggestion around this criterion was to develop a composite indicator to characterize the production orientation of the holdings, building on Nicaragua experience and OTEX experience in EU, looking at the main and secondary production systems and the degree of diversity vs specialization. Such could also facilitate potential interpretation in the country along market orientation, identifying for instance the presence of clear cash or export crops vs clearly mainly staple orientation (such as coffee being a cash crop in most countries, maize clearly the main staple in many African countries etc.). This composite could be done by translating production (or approximate production through variables of land size, livestock, input use etc.) into monetary terms to compare such different productions and aggregate them. It requires in-depth local field knowledge of the country and can be also supported by available GIS tools (such as GAEZ which contains modules estimating production within disaggregated location). Such process could also facilitate the estimation of a total level of production, which can be used as proxy of agricultural income (Argentina experience) and can be compared to total sales when existing. The resulting indicator could be used in three ways: i) to characterize holdings (prevalence of different systems etc.); ii) to carry out typology within similar production systems, offering also a very disaggregated data base along production systems and regions, facilitating various types of analysis (good practices from Argentina, Nicaragua) but also iii) to build sub-categories of clearly distinct production level and orientation, complementing or verifying the original “subsistence / semi-subsistence and commercial” categories to approximate types from those producing below or around their food needs, those including a clear cash production, those clearly having a substantial surplus. Different thresholds of food consumption, viability level, reproduction etc could be built locally and respond to stakeholders’ interest.

4. Further identification of types across country case studies All E-discussion confirmed the need of further disaggregation of the different types on the basis of the three distinguishing criteria, particularly labor usage. As per the WAW framework, these types shall notably be distinct along the different assets of the livelihood framework, capturing more vulnerable and less endowed holdings so that the typology can actually well inform policy. Also, it is important that sub-types can contribute to relevant monitoring of rural transformations. There were three main approaches used for the purpose of further type disaggregation across the country case studies:

Subdivide further labor usage based category In Malawi, there was no possibility to separate a type hiring permanent worker, consequently four family farm categories were developed: i) a holding with only family labor, ii) a holding with mostly family, iii) a holding with mostly hired, and finally iv) a holding with only hired labor. The holding

relying only on family labor was clearly the least endowed but the analysis on production orientation showed that both commercialized and semi-subsistence holdings were present in this category. Distinctions in terms of assets among the remaining three types were not very evident either.

Maintain the family, patronal and corporate farm categories and introduce information on production systems

The Nicaragua study first adopted the CIRAD proposal of three labor usage based types and acknowledged their relevance to consider social dimensions; however, correlation with specific production systems with strong impacts on the characteristics of the holdings limited the conclusions. Further analysis within similar production systems showed that the three labor-usage based categories were present and were significantly different in terms of assets across the same production system. This led to recommend further delineation of labor by distinguishing holdings with only family labor and the identification of holdings where family labor was engaged in off-farm waged work.

Subdivide further the legal status category In France, the further disaggregation of labor based category according to their legal status (individual, enterprise, corporate) was found useful. The overwhelming importance of single farm with a single family worker (or less) was also highlighted with potential impact on the economic size of the farm beyond other assets. Also interesting was the emergence of a “cooperative” status with joint holders (under enterprise) which can be fully relying on family labor and are then larger and comparable to some patronal type

Combination of WAW variables Vietnam carried out a cluster analysis combining share of hired labor, degree of commercialization and level of education of household head. It found one semi-subsistence category without hired labor and four commercial categories with increased rate of hired labor, connected with increased agricultural revenue, education of holder, total revenue and decreased on and off farm diversification. The two categories not using any hired labor were the least endowed but very distinct according to their market orientation. A specific-analysis of the household sub-segment (household survey) did not bring up labor as a distinguishing criterion (all were almost only using family labor), but only level of commercialization came up as significant. In Malawi, the combination of labor and commercialization was found powerful and complementary, with also diverse correlation with degree and type of off farm and income. Like in Madagascar and Vietnam, there appeared to be a positive correlation between increased use of hired labor, higher assets, income, but with heterogeneity against different level of commercialization. Such diverse level of commercialization seemed to be correlated with different types of production systems, the pure subsistence producing 99% of staple products, the semi-subsistence around 70% and the “commercial” around 50%, showcasing the potential of Nicaragua approach to also estimate such commercial orientation. Surprisingly, we could find that farm with only or mostly hired labor could also be subsistence and semi-subsistence, with similar land size, agricultural income but strong differences in terms of off farm activities and poverty status. It was evident from country case studies that dialogues with stakeholders can help propose criteria combinations that seem to make more sense, both along the family farming and rural transformations debate and to separate types with sufficient different assets and strategies and corresponding to “real” farm types on the field.

Subdivide family farms with locally defined indicators of asset level Although the Argentina and Brazil case studies were carried out several years back and outside of the WAW typology proposal, they defined family farm with a relatively similar framework, combining criteria based on labor (predominant family labor and limited permanent worker) with

management (no hired manager, status as a verification criteria). Interestingly, they both considered very important to highlight the heterogeneity of family farms through descriptive exercises that allowed further disaggregation and identification. In the Brazil case study an indicator of work productivity was calculated and compared to regional waged salary in order to make a number of categories with very different income levels. In the case of Argentina a method to approximate regionally different level of assets according to mechanization type, land size, irrigation and livestock head number was developed in order to identify farms that transitioned from marginal to well capitalized,. The most capitalized family farms presented 1 to 2 permanent workers. As evidenced with these examples, asset endowment was used to situate holdings within their regional contexts or immediate territories.

5. Descriptive Analysis The descriptive analysis of identified types is usually a critical aspect to inform policy makers and understand the nature of family, patronal and corporate farming. Commonly used descriptive criteria found in the case studies included: asset endowment, poverty level, livelihood strategies (including diversification/specialization patterns), production systems, agro-ecological setting and overall territorial influences. The statistical method through which these descriptive criteria could be exploited was also varied from correlation analysis to ANOVA and Duncan Tests. Statistical methods enrich the descriptive analysis of types. Commonly used approaches were the Duncan Tests and the variable correlation analysis. For example, correlation between hired labor and assets may in some context contribute to delineate the relative wealth of family farm types. Also, analysis which relied mostly on labor showed that categories remained very heterogeneous, impacted by different distributions of production systems, showing the pertinence to carry out analysis within similar production systems. Similarly, it was argued throughout case studies that information on the nature of on-farm as well as off -arm activities could be an interesting indicator of diversification/specialization patterns, particularly when engaging in dynamic analysis aimed at capturing transformations at the holding or sectoral level. Lastly, information on poverty and food security along with an overall assessment of assets/capitals was found relevant to identify the most vulnerable types in socio-economic terms. Recommendations In depth descriptive analysis could help describe a series of relevant sub-types such as i) the most marginal and small holdings, which hardly reach the subsistence level, cannot hire any labor and are most likely engaged in casual off farm work; ii) the holdings specialized in off farm work but which keep semi-subsistence production levels, able to hire casual labor force and use inputs which are subsidized by off farm cash. These two categories, however, may not be strictly categorized as “agricultural holdings” and therefore not captured in certain national census since their main livelihood is not arising from the agricultural sector. In other words, the descriptive analysis may be a tool to expand the focus of the WAW international typology. Another aspect which can be enhanced through the descriptive analysis of types is the monitoring of agricultural transformations, particularly if off-farm and on-farm diversification criteria and indicators are considered. E-discussion reminded the need and interest for typology to inform policy on ongoing and potential future rural transformations, which require related relevant indicators and methods but also conceptual framework which could facilitate understanding and comparison of transformations. Concerning on-farm diversification, the Nicaragua study proposed a conceptual framework which correlates labor based category along increasing on-farm income

and an inverted U shape of on-farm diversification. Nicaragua, Brazil and Madagascar found increased farm specialization along increased hired labor usage while Vietnam found apparently some kind of inverted U shape for family households. Such may come from the fact that the most marginalized and smaller (theoretically less diversified according to Nicaragua proposed framework) are not sufficiently identified under the labor based category or are below the thresholds of the definition of agricultural holding. The “off farm activities” criterion may also be considered crucial to capture and understand overall rural transformations and as an indicator to identify holdings of relatively similar sizes (Malawi, Vietnam, Madagascar) such as i) poorly endowed household holdings with insufficient agricultural income and ill-paid temporal jobs and ii) household holdings with stable and high return of off-farm work leading to farming as a lifestyle, hobby or subsistence orientation. In this context, the definitions of family farm and agricultural holding may include minimum time spent on farm or minimum share of income to be derived from agriculture. Descriptive analysis may also be enhanced by engaging in national and local consultation workshops (as carried out notably by Vietnam and Madagascar). Stakeholders may highlight particular traits which require further analysis. In the cases of Vietnam and Madagascar, the following suggestions to improve typology development were mentioned: i) expand the analysis of types on the basis of production systems(including information on size and level of diversification, particularly in off farm activities. ii) analyze the correspondence of family farm concept with other national concepts as found in alternative typologies. iii) introduce further work on socio-economic assessment, environment, land access and security.

6. General recommendations, WAW Role and Next steps As stated, the WAW international typology introduces three distinguishing criteria which can serve to delineate family, patronal and corporate farming. The results from the country typology implementation exercises also proved that type disaggregation is desirable for policy purposes. For instance, main conclusions from the case studies implied that that holdings not specialized in agriculture yet present in the rural contexts should not be entirely excluded as presently done in certain country census observations. In most country case studies, the potential added value of identifying holdings with different off farm activities, holdings selling their labor force as daily workers (such as “Ganyu” in Malawi) and holdings with stable alternative livelihoods to agriculture demonstrated to be relevant for further assessment. Similarly, it is also recognized that on farm and off farm diversification/specialization trends are relevant in the analysis of transformations at holding and sectoral level. The latter includes information on how family labor is employed outside agriculture, on the nature of the production system and alternative livelihoods (for instance, the relevance of agricultural over off-farm income) and on the main occupation of holder. In any case, it is important to highlight that the transformations of family farms can also challenge the way in which they are categorized into family, patronal or corporate holdings. For instance, many family farm definitions consider the inter-relations between family and farm and the reliance on non-waged worker as part of the advantages of family farm. Yet there are family farms where family workers are paid and when family cooperatives are instituted. These aspects call for further analytical work in the formulation of the WAW international typology of agricultural holdings. The latter can mainly be achieved through multidisciplinary and collaborative work at international level. In this respect, WAW can play a key role in the facilitating of South-South and triangular cooperation. The latter can take place via e-meetings that involve country practitioners, academic and policy experts, Dgroup platforms as a way to maintain close contact and organize both online

and physical meetings and the incorporation of additional partners and expertise while supporting access to a wider documentation and experience through the Dgroup. The WAW platform can also address some of the requests issued by country typology development teams around further capacity reinforcement both in institutional and technical terms. Institutional aspects include:

o Organization of technical assistance in terms of statistical tools and uses, but also for future analysis related to dynamic and temporal assessments. The latter shall also include training or support on the development of surveys to complement existing data (as highlighted by Madagascar). o Support in the launching of a dynamic process of participation for the different stakeholders o Organization of WAW Secretariat missions to the countries to support the kick start of the work, the reinforcement of the capacities along with the involvement of key stakeholders. Funds to support these activities are also considered essential. o Help in the valorization of their work. These mainly refer to the preparation and dissemination of communication documents with similar formatting to be uploaded into a common observatory website. The support could also be extended in the form of funding to participate and present their work along regional or international conferences or policy dialogue events.

To address technical gaps, a WAW international typology toolkit could include elements which guide the whole process of typology development and implementation. It could be based on the following aspects:

o The WAW toolkit may include a shared ontology to facilitate discussions, based as much as possible on existing statistical official definitions. o The analysis of coverage of statistics and combination with other data could be carefully supported, notably on the correspondence and gap between census and household surveys. Ideally, WAW could contribute to channel expert knowledge in order to support data handling (from both census and survey sources) at country level. o A crucial methodological step refers to the choice of approach (deductive vs statistical) and the choice is constrained by data availability, thus a set of methodological options could be explored and proposed to observatories. Methodological tools may be useful in the combination of statistical and deductive approaches or in the integration of survey and census datasets. o Organization of type descriptive analysis introducing a list of most relevant indicators to be used and adapted to each country. It may also include (based on data availability) correlation analysis between key variables. Similarly, good practices could be derived from Brazil and Nicaragua work which both used agrarian diagnosis conducted with master level students. o The toolkit could also address issues associated to longer term monitoring systems and improvement of holding survey and census coordination particularly to effectively identify holdings throughout different sources and in different points in time. o Considering the importance of the policy impact of such work, processes to effective stakeholder involvement should be included. o Support to engage in national analysis of disaggregated types according to different territories. This requires further thinking on how to identify and build such territories.

Need to find criteria to identify, select and characterize territories with different transformation patterns or stakes of transformations. Mapping tools may be useful to showcase differences across territories and within territories o Move further from statistic typology to dynamic analysis of transformations of agricultural holdings. Such may also require further proposed guidance to facilitate also comparison and exchange. Also, specific methodological tools may be needed to reflect on modalities of analysis along surveys with different scope across time (few surveys are actually panels).

7. Pending questions

To summarize, the WAW typology implementation exercises raised the following questions: On WAW international typology purpose:

o Taking into consideration that indicators of distinguishing criteria and data availability may vary from country to country, to what extent should a set of international types be defined for cross country comparison? (Refer to Table below on tentative international types) In other words, should the WAW initiative aim for a set of roughly comparable types and transformation trends at international level or give this up and mainly become a framework which facilitates dialogue by introducing a common ontology, fosters data harmonization and offers methodological support (through a basic toolkit for typology development including advice on data management, general application of criteria and type identification)? or can both of these objectives be combined?

On scope and unit of analysis:

Considering the challenges associated to combining census with other surveys and the issues associated to the diversity of definitions around agricultural holdings, shall WAW adopt its own “definition” of agricultural holding in order to ensure that scope of assessment is similar across countries and data?

On methodological approach & data management:

o Should a deductive or statistical approach to building the WAW country typology should be preferred/advised/combined?

o Should attempts to merging data from household surveys and census be prioritized? o Is additional data collection (i.e. agrarian diagnosis, expert consultation, field survey, etc.)

needed? On the application of distinguishing criteria:

o Should country teams begin with a step by step introduction of distinguishing criteria (i.e. first labor usage, then legal status/management and finally output orientation) or should the proposed distinguishing criteria be combined in one single step for the identification of types? (connected to methodological questions above)

o In the further disaggregation of types, should labor usage be the first distinguishing criterion to consider? To what extent should off-farm and on-farm specialization/diversification be incorporated considering that the off-farm nature may relate to household not included in census?

o to what extent should the production purpose criterion be replaced or complemented by a production system composite indicator (considering that the latter requires substantial in-depth knowledge of country agricultural systems and that when the share of sales is available it has proved to be an efficient indicator)?

On the descriptive analysis of types

o Once types are established, how should the definition of sub-categories be addressed? Should there be a common approach to the descriptive analysis of types?

o What should be the role of off and on-farm diversification/specialization? Should it remain a descriptive criterion or be considered as a distinguishing criterion instead?

All of these issues shall be raised in forthcoming E-discussion and Dgroup exchanges with current and new WAW partners. It is expected that the results will serve to enrich the proposal of a WAW methodological toolkit as well as to refine the institutional role and purpose of the WAW platform.

Distinguishing

Criteria /

Descriptive

Analysis

Variables

Type 1: MARGINAL

holding:

Family managed

holding aimed at

subsistence, “survival

strategies” including

the selling of labor

with no hired labor

Type 2:

PLURI-ACTIVE

holding:

Family managed

holding not

specialized in

agriculture with

limited hired

labor. May

include

“hobby/

recreational”

pensioner

Type 3:

Subsistence

Family Farm

with

diversified

livelihood

Type 4:

“Pure family”

commercial farm

with limited

input & asset

“peasant”

Type 5:

Commercial

Family farm

with little

hired work &

minimum

capital

Type 6:

“family”

Patronal farm

with limited

market

involvement

Type 7:

“ family”

Patronal farm

with strong

commercial

orientation

Type 8:

Patronal “with

manager” ; mainly

commercial

Type 9:

Corporate firms to be

subdivided according to

legal status as:

Planting pool, cooperative

farm, agricultural business

and public funded

agricultural holding.

Sector/data Usually excluded from census (i.e. not

considered as agriculturally specialized

holdings or households (HH))

Included in census & agricultural HH surveys

In census; Not in HH

survey

Legal status Mostly Informal HH-managed holding HH managed holding (formal or informal status) HH managed

holding with

formal status

Enterprise /

professional

Corporate (non-HH

holding); other capital

Management By the family, directly by the owner hired manager;

possibly non-

family investors

Hired manager

Family vs hired

labor

Only family labor. Only family labor

with limited

temporary hired

labor.

Only family

labor with

limited hired

labor

Only family

labor

Family labor

with limited

hired labor: no

permanent

worker &

temporary labor

and contract

services < 50%

labor force

Family labor

with different

forms of hired

labor yet <50%

of total labor

force

Family labor

with different

forms of hired

labor yet

<50% of total

labor force

>>50% hired

Very limited

family input but

family owns most

of the capital

(absentee land

owners etc

No family labor.

Production/sale Mainly subsistence/max production

Limited diversification &cash crop

Min sales / production / cash crop

More local May incl. other VC

Mixed market

involvement

Clearly commercial possibly export oriented

Off farm

diversification

& On-farm

specialization

little on & off farm

income (casual

agricultural wages,

landless coping

strategy)

not specialized in

agriculture but

with stable job or

activities outside

agriculture

Stable off

farm activities

but with

viable

agricultural

activities

Specialized in

agriculture

(main

occupation) with

limited off farm

activities

Specialized in

agriculture

(Main

occupation in

agriculture)

Stable off farm

activities but

with viable

agricultural

activities

Specialized in

agriculture

(Main

occupation in

agriculture)

Holding is

specialized in

agriculture but

owner may have

other important

off farm activities

Holding is specialized in

agriculture

Asset Very limited assets

(incl “landless”

Limited assets Minimum

asset

Minimum asset Can be well

capitalized

Mixed capital Capitalized potentially increasingly

Tentative international typology to encourage discussion

Glossary Agricultural Holding: A unit of agricultural production under single management comprising all assets and factors of production (used wholly or partly for agricultural production purposes), without regard to title, legal form, or size. Single management may be exercised by an individual or household, jointly by two or more individuals or households, by a clan or tribe, or by a juridical person such as a corporation, cooperative or government agency. (Household management vs Non-Household management)The land may consist of one or more parcels, located in one or more separate areas or in one or more territorial or administrative divisions, providing the parcels share the same management and production means (such as labour, farm buildings, machinery or draught animals). Extracts from FAO (2005, 2007) – WPAC 2010 Cluster Analysis: Any of several procedures in multivariate analysis designed to determine whether individuals, cases, or other units of analysis are similar enough to be grouped into clusters. The individuals within a cluster are similar on some variable(s), while the clusters are dissimilar from one another. Corporate Farming Sector: Group of holdings under non-household management, based on 100% hired labor and oriented towards commercialization. These holdings are also usually specialized in their respective agricultural activity and have a profit-based logic. It includes cooperatives, associations, corporations or enterprises, planting pools, public funded holdings etc. Deductive approach to typology building: consists in defining holding types on the basis of expert knowledge and literature review and/or a specific policy objective/focus around pre-selected distinguishing criteria. This method follows a top-down approach with holding types being defined a priori with or without a posteriori validation from data or field-based feedback. Types may be identified according to field consultation of technical experts, local authorities, stakeholder interviews, etc. The a priori qualitative classification can be validated, documented, detailed and/or sub-divided based on quantitative datasets. Descriptive analysis: Once types have been identified, the descriptive analysis has the objective of informing their key traits in terms of key descriptive criteria such as asset endowment, poverty level, livelihood strategies (including diversification/specialization patterns), production systems, agro-ecological setting and overall territorial influences. Besides describing types under such aspects, it may also include a statistical component (based on descriptive statistics) that allows for correlation analysis between descriptive criteria and other sets of tests such as Duncan Test. Discriminant Analysis: A form of regression analysis designed for classification into predefined, mutually exclusive groups. It allows two or more continuous independent variables to be used to place individuals or cases into the categories of a categorical dependent variable. Distinguishing criteria: There are three distinguishing criteria which serve as the basis to build the WAW typology. They are used as the key entry point for identifying types of holdings. These are: usage of family vis à vis hired labor (as main operational criterion), management and decision making process at the level of the holding (social criterion or legal status of the holder) and

production and its relationship to self-consumption or market (production purpose criterion). For each criterion, specific indicators need to be developed or selected. The indicators of the distinguishing criteria depend on data availability and may vary from country to country. Distinguishing dimension may also be used as a synonym for distinguishing criterion. Family Farming Sector: FAO definition agreed along the International Year of Family farming states that Family farming is a means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and

aquaculture production which is managed and operated by a family and predominantly reliant

on family labour, including both women’s and men’s. Farm-Household: a social unit where members share the same abode or hearth and pool resources for farming activities (Ellis, 2000). Statistical approach to typology building: method that consists in applying statistical tests to existing datasets in order to group individuals according to criteria (that can be pre-selected or identified through quantitative methods). The idea is to come to homogeneous groups with little intra-group variability while high inter-group variability is enforced. The main statistical tests quoted in the literature for typology building are the principal and multivariate analyses as well as the cluster analysis. Outliers: Extreme values Patronal Farming Sector: Holdings under this sector are household-managed but the labor force is supplied by a mix of both family and hired labor. The orientation of production may be either for commercialization or self-subsistence and in occasions a hired manager may be present.

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 20

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 23

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 23

1.2 Report Objectives ................................................................................................................ 24

2 WAW Typology Proposal .......................................................................................................... 24

2.1 Use of typology for policy across literature review ............................................................ 25

2.2 Identifying distinguishing criteria ....................................................................................... 26

2.3 WAW proposal for an international typology ..................................................................... 28

3 Main characteristics and results of case studies with review from Dgroup and E-conferences 29

3.1 Initial common framework and varied end results .............................................................. 30

3.2 Main theoretical and methodological findings from national case studies ......................... 40

3.2.1 Review on distinguishing criteria ................................................................................ 40

3.2.2 Combining distinguishing criteria: degree of aggregation ........................................... 48

3.2.3 Issues and recommendations regarding sources of data .............................................. 50

3.2.4 Methodological Approach, step by step overview of the development and assessment

of types 54

4 WAW International typology purpose ....................................................................................... 57

4.1 Supporting policy formulation: national vs international viewpoints ................................. 58

4.2 Developing family farm-related concepts ........................................................................... 59

4.3 WAW typology as targeting mechanism............................................................................. 60

4.3.1 Descriptive Analysis .................................................................................................... 61

4.3.2 Confronting typology to existing national typologies and stakeholders view ............. 68

4.4 Relevance of WAW typology in capturing rural transformations ...................................... 70

4.4.1 Overview on rural transformations .............................................................................. 70

4.4.2 WAW typology, a monitoring mechanism of rural transformations at holding level . 75

5 WAW Recommendations and proposed way forward ............................................................... 78

5.1 Main lessons and pending issues ......................................................................................... 78

5.2 Recommendations for WAW roles to support countries ..................................................... 86

References .......................................................................................................................................... 89

Annex 1: List of E-conferences, authors and participants ................................................................. 92

Annex 2: Template and general guidelines for national case study reports ....................................... 95

Annex 3: Extracts from Wye hand book on rural statistics (2012) on country definitions of

agricultural household ........................................................................................................................ 99

Annex 4 Comparison of definitions and criteria to characterize family and non family farms ....... 102

Annex 5: summary recommendations made for the WCA2020 as at May 2014 ............................ 105

Implementation of WAW International Typology: Synthesis Report of seven national case studies

(Argentina, Brazil, France, Madagascar, Malawi Nicaragua, Vietnam)

1 Introduction 1.1 Background In 2013, IFAD supported WAW with a Small Grant (https://Dgroups.org/?qp728awc) aiming at elaborating and testing an international typology of agricultural holdings, as a core basis of WAW methodological framework, in order to 1) facilitate the comparison between different holdings, and 2) support the monitoring of transformations to inform policy debate at country level. Both aspects are expected to facilitate further poverty analysis and policy formulation, highlighting stakes and policy needs of the most vulnerable groups. Following an extensive literature review, expert Dgroup consultation and a consultation meeting held in May 2013 (https://Dgroups.org/?typgpp91), WAW international consultants elaborated a revised typology proposal (WAW, 2013), combining the criterion originally proposed on usage of family vs hired labor (see CIRAD typology proposal in the WAW framework https://Dgroups.org/?l1tpgzck) with other criteria related to management / legal status, and purpose of production (commercialization/self-consumption), enabling therefore to further characterize family farming while approaching its diversity. Such proposal was meant to be implemented on national data sets (notably census but in cases completed by household surveys) by teams of national and CIRAD partners in four countries: Madagascar, Nicaragua, Vietnam and France. The present report consolidates the main findings and lessons from these country typology implementation exercises. Discussion of results along various events, including the International Year of Family Farming, confirmed the need and added value of such enhanced WAW international typology development, provided suggestions for the next steps and enabled the identification of further synergies with planed events and publications (see https://Dgroups.org/?r7d355bt). From mid-February 2014 till mid-April 2014, a first series of six e-conference (annex 1) and Dgroup discussions were held with the core set of WAW Partners5 actively engaged in the formulation and test of the WAW international typology proposal. In addition to the four countries mentioned above, presentations were organized on very similar experiences in Brazil (By Carlos Guanziroli and Paolo Groppo) and Argentina (Edith Obschatko, IICA) which enormously enriched discussions. Also, partners from the FARM foundation tested the WAW international typology using LSMS-ISA data in Malawi (Mathilde Douillet and Angelique Toulon)

5 Country Partners involved in implementation of the typology proposal, core collaborating partners from CIRAD and

FAO , WAW consultants and WAW Secretariat. Such group was progressively extended to other key experts involved in such similar work (typology based / using notably census information).

https://dgroups.org/?qp728awc

https://dgroups.org/?typgpp91

https://dgroups.org/?l1tpgzck

https://dgroups.org/?r7d355bt

1.2 Report Objectives The current document presents a synthesis of the main findings and lessons of the WAW international typology implementation in selected countries. The report touches on a variety of issues. First, it presents a summary on the literature review and expert consultations processes which led to the proposed framework of three distinguishing criteria for the WAW international typology (Section 2). Second, it discusses key results from the national case studies which include issues concerning data sources, methodology on criteria application, selection of indicators and descriptive analysis of types. This task also entails the revision of key element from the country reports and E-discussion related to converging and divergent views on methodologies and thematic areas requiring further discussions such as the subsequent descriptive analysis of emerging types or the best approach to combine distinguishing criteria (Section 3). Fourth, it reviews the policy relevance of country typologies emerging from the country observatories while also reviewing key concepts such as family, patronal and corporate holdings, while discussing the monitoring potential of the WAW international typology in capturing rural transformations (Section 4). Lastly, it presents a reflection on the potential next steps for the WAW Secretariat as a way to further support the typology development processes at country level while designing efforts in the international arena which contribute to policy relevant dialogue (Section 5). The present synthesis shall be further discussed among WAW partners as a way to provide the building foundations for a final implementation phase which entails a revision of the typology proposal along a new set of country case studies. As with previous efforts, D-group interactions and E-conferences will be implemented to revise this synthesis report and related country case studies. The objective is to share the acquired lessons and pending questions with a wider set of partners, at national and international level. This task is essential to develop further the WAW international typology and methodological framework. At country level, such process shall also facilitate the elaboration of the country priorities for the next set of case studies. Similarly, recommendations will be made to the next round of census guidelines as well as to the International working group on criteria for definitions and typologies of family farming set up by the international steering committee of the IYFF. It is expected that the international working group will also help further the WAW reflections around family farms typologies and may offer a general framework to anchor in the longer term such kind of work. 2 WAW Typology Proposal A team of international consultant was recruited to carry out an in-depth analysis of the initial typology proposed by CIRAD in the WAW methodological framework which consisted in using permanent hired labor as the main criteria to distinguish family from patronal farms, and the sole use of hired labor to identify corporate farms. The consultancy analysis was based: (i) on extensive literature review, covering 187 sources from 73 different countries (Figure 1) (ii) an electronic forum of discussion (D-Group) aimed at capturing international expert consultations, (iii) inputs from country observatories on the data availability, the nature of local typologies being used and on potential relevant criteria to build an international typology. The present section extracts and summarizes key elements from such consultancy report (WAW, 2013).

Figure 1 Distribution of literature reviewed per region

2.1 Use of typology for policy across literature review The overview of typologies of agricultural holdings in different geographical areas pursued three main objectives:

1. IDENTIFY which criteria or distinguishing factors have been widely employed (besides labor) in order to set up different types of agricultural holdings.

2. RECOGNIZE practical implementation challenges of typologies (i.e. data availability, particularities of policy purpose, extent of comparability across countries)

3. ANALYZE how labor, as a distinguishing criterion, has been used, whether it has been deemed as sufficient to characterize holdings, or whether other criteria have been considered as potentially relevant to establish COMPARABLE international types of agricultural holdings.

The literature review served to illustrate divergences and convergences in terms of methodologies, data-sources used and selection of main distinguishing criteria for typology building across different world regions. Core outputs and lessons learnt from this process include the following:

A typology of agricultural holdings is a tool widely used for policy monitoring and very relevant for more effective documentation of agrarian systems and their transformations; Most developed and emerging countries public institutions use typology based tools to monitor and formulate policies, building around census but more regularly updated through specific surveys. However, lacking at governmental level in developing countries remains a critical issue;

Two main approach to typology: a Deductive Method (top-down or qualitative) where criteria were pre-selected in order to construct policy relevant types and a Data-Based Method (bottom up or statistic) where traits were identified (using numerical approaches) in order to cluster observations.

Regarding data sources, the most common databases included: Agricultural Census, LSMS, National Surveys, Government Statistics (Tax Authorities), Academic Research Surveys & Focus Groups; with the former being the most likely to ensure international comparability of indicators.

Wide variety of typology reflecting diversity of systems as well as the fact that typologies are most often built to pursue specific objectives;

3%

37%

8%

16% 7%

14%

12% 4%

North America

European Union

Balkan States (non EU)

FSU countries

South-East Asia

There are however common variables and trends across systems, even though many different terminologies may be in place. The following were the most frequently found criteria (although it should be highlighted that in every case a variety of indicators were chosen for each criteria, making direct comparisons unviable): o Labor Usage o Legal Status o Market Orientation, Diversification & Specialization o Land & Business Size o (Physical) Capital Asset Endowment o Gender

2.2 Identifying distinguishing criteria Labor usage The literature review indicates that ¨labor usage¨ is often incorporated in combination with other criteria such as marketing and management which sometimes it is captured in the form of legal status. Although the “labor usage” criterion was widely found in most typologies worldwide, the exceptions were the North American and the Balkan countries´ typologies. Another key issue to consider is that the nature of labor allocation decisions in terms of type of worker (family versus hired) and in terms of the time-involvement (permanent versus seasonal) is not always fully collected in the national censuses, making the WAW methodological distinction of ¨presence of permanent hired labor¨ a very difficult to implement threshold in order to distinguish between family farming and family business or patronal farming (i.e. type 1 from type 2 under the CIRAD propositions). Similarly, without considering the legal status or management nature of the holding (household versus non-household) the threshold of ¨only hired labor¨ may include household holdings that only hire labor under type 3 which is associated to corporate agriculture. In other words, the usage of external labor force is not only a characteristic of better-off holders since aged households, single headed holdings or female headed holdings (in which their reduced capacity or engagement in domestic work may limit the time devoted to productive farm work) may also rely on hired labor. Similarly, the exclusive usage of family labor force is not always a characteristic of less endowed farms. Refer to recreational farmers that practice agriculture for their own as a hobby or as a supplement to their main salary/income, see also for example the three sub-types of small US family farms that are retirement farms, residential/lifestyle farms and farming-occupation farms holdings. Similar situation can be found in Europe. Also substituting external labor by machinery, hired services or agricultural technologies (i.e herbicides) is also a common strategy of family farmers relying on enough financial capital or with access to credit. Legal status The literature findings demonstrated that ¨Legal Status¨ is a widely used criterion in contexts of poor data availability (particularly regarding labor indicators). The holding status is often an easy way to supplement or corroborate the labor usage criterion since it allows to identify large individual/private holdings from corporate ones. Since this criterion places the focus on differentiating between family-run holdings and non-family or corporate holdings and it is frequently found in agricultural census (introduced as a core module by FAO) and surveys it is considered as suitable to reinforce the labor criterion highlighted under the WAW methodological framework. Market Orientation, Diversification & Specialization Market Orientation:

Market orientation is rarely a differentiating factor used in industrialized country’s typologies because most farms are well integrated into markets. However, this criterion comes across as a fundamental distinguishing criterion among the majority of typologies in developing countries and it is identified as a core module under WAC guidelines. The most direct indicator is obviously the answer to the binary question “what is the destination of your outputs: market of self-consumption”, but more precision is given by the share of agricultural production sold. The market orientation criterion presents several advantages. Firstly, it is particularly appropriate to catch agricultural transitions and it tends to be connected to diversification and specialization efforts. This feature is well illustrated by the DRDLR’s typology (2009) which combines market orientation with off-farm activities to define in-transition types of holdings. Diversification: In all countries, a significant part of agricultural holders are considered multi-active agents that may be involved in non- or off-farm activities. Information on diversification particularly fits to typologies focusing on the household level rather than the holding level where these different income sources are not always necessarily captured in agricultural datasets. The “off-farm activity” is a good complement to understand the role of agricultural activities in a given household, but the current focus of the WAW international typology is on holdings which includes those in corporate or entrepreneurial agriculture. On a more practical ground, it should be highlighted that data on incomes are rarely detailed in national agricultural censuses and national surveys related with agriculture and thus it could hardly be used to classify holdings at the international level. Specialization: Productive specialization is a criterion found among distinguishing factors both in developing and industrialized countries. It is present in WAC core modules. The main quality of “productive specialization” is its capacity to define categories: subsistence cereal crop holdings (in Toulmin and Gueyes (2003) or agro-pastoralists and para-agricultural farmers (in Mbétid-Bessane 2003). But at the same time, it can induce very specialized and precise types (i.e. suckler breeder of milk-fed calves). Similarly, setting thresholds for international comparison would not be straightforward. Land & Business Size ¨Land size¨ is relatively easy to measure and it is commonly declared in countries where private ownership prevails over customary rights. Land size might be the aspect with the widest number of different indicators: total area, cropland area, grassland area, wooded land area, Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) or “operated area”, “cultivated area”, etc. However, the main limitation of land size indicators is that they are highly context specific and difficult to compare (varied agro-ecologies or investment/ha). Similarly, ¨business size¨ is an important distinguishing factor in official typologies of industrialized countries. Monetary value indicators in general present some major drawbacks. The first is particularly tangible in a context of fluctuating prices. The use of business size as a differentiating criterion also raises the question of how to establish international thresholds and comparisons: Standard Gross Margin, Gross Sales, Gross Cash Income, etc. Capital Asset Endowment The (human, social, physical, financial, natural) capital asset endowment is an approach initially developed to assess the livelihood options offered to developing countries’ holdings and applies for typologies performed at the household level. According to Tittonell et al (2005), the asset endowment component would gain to be combined with indicators related to the household

agricultural strategy to develop interesting typologies. “An initial approach to classify farms based solely on resource endowment led to poor discrimination of resource allocation patterns. Adding information on production goals (e.g. self-subsistence, market orientation), the main types of constraints faced, position in the farm developmental cycle and main source of income improved the discrimination of farm typologies enormously”. Physical Capital: Level of equipment and access to agricultural technologies and services In the reviewed typologies, the level of equipment is never quantified in monetary value and it tends to be highly context-specific (In Africa it is captured through presence of manual agriculture versus animal drawn agriculture, In Asia, through the presence of irrigation green revolution-related improvements i.e. improved seeds, fertilizers). Level of equipment is not present among differentiating criteria of industrialized countries’ typologies, but it is used as a descriptive indicator (i.e irrigation system of low vs high intensity in Italy (Longhitano 2012), or the share of farm per size class that own a tractor in Greece (Daskalopoulou and Petrou 2002)). Gender In the literature review, Gender variables are used in some typologies to point out specific constraints applied to men or women, which tend to be highly context specific. The main limitation to introduce gender among the main distinguishing factors of an international typology is that it would double the number of types, as it is the case in Djonnewa et al. (2000) and in Djondang and Leroy (2001) (both quoted by Mbétid-Bessane 2003). For one author, “complementary variables such as gender or marital status of the household head were not included in the Principal Component Analysis but used as criteria to refine the clusters later on” (Tittonell, Muriuki et al. 2010). Hence, it would rather fit as secondary distinguishing criterion to distinguish local types or sub-types. In summary:

o Land & Business size, Gender, Physical Capital Endowment & Specialization appear to be highly context specific and lead to over-specific types decreasing international comparability

o Diversification (of household income sources & activities) & 5 capital asset endowment go beyond the scope of agricultural holding activities

o Market Orientation is particularly relevant in the light of policy programs aimed at integrating smallholders into supply chains and higher degree of commercialization

o Legal status may serve to corroborate labor usage information as it may capture the type of management

o Legal status & Market Orientation are identified as core modules under World Agricultural Census 2010 guidelines while labor is excluded from core modules, partly contributing to the large variety of reported indicators at Census data level.

2.3 WAW proposal for an international typology During the consultation meeting held in May 2013, after the presentation made by the Consultants, an ESS Senior Officer presented the variables commonly used for typologies and part of the core or main modules of the guidelines of the agricultural census:

o Management: Individual, Household, Cooperative, Government, Corporation o Scale: Marginal, Small, Semi-medium, Medium, Large

o Main Source of Labor: Household or Hired o Purpose of Production: Home consumption or market o Agricultural activity: Crop, Livestock, Forest, Fish or combinations o Agro-climatic Zone: Nomadic, Dry land, River basin, mountainous, high altitude

Such set of variables partly recouped the analysis which emerged from the Consultants’ literature review. After much discussion, it was decided to take into consideration only three variables, as distinguishing variables, as they were likely to be most internationally comparable, and to test them against the data available within the WAW Pilot Country Observatories (France, Madagascar, Nicaragua and Vietnam. These three variables or distinguishing criteria were:

1. usage of family vis à vis hired labor (as main operational criterion) 2. management and decision making process at the level of the holding (social criterion or

legal status of the holder) 3. production and its relationship to self-consumption or market (production purpose

criterion) Following such meeting, the consultants issued the first draft of the proposed WAW international typology with theoretical and empirical evidence to support an implementation process without strong a priori categorization given uncertainties on data availability and with threshold to be further defined considering the specific traits of country observatories. It was based on these findings and discussions that country case studies in France, Madagascar, Nicaragua and Vietnam initiated their first trials to produce country typologies that could be internationally comparable based on the three WAW distinguishing criteria.. Experiences from alternative typology exercises in Argentina, Brazil and Malawi are documented when relevant. 3 Main characteristics and results of case studies with review from Dgroup and E-conferences In order to support the implementation process of the proposed WAW international typology each of the four country observatories were provided with a common template that could guide typology development. At the same time a series of e-conference and Dgroup discussions were held in order to support the typology implementation exercises. The aim of each round of e-conference and Dgroup discussion were to : 1) analyze country reports which were prepared along a common template (https://Dgroups.org/?l3vc3x9t), providing possible shared guidelines for each country to finalize its reports; 2) provide a common evaluation of the typology proposal, its feasibility and relevance to assess the national situations, monitor transformations and inform policy 3) revise consistently the proposed typology of agricultural holding and suggest priority tasks for future development and test, alongside a shared plan of work and budget; 4) make practical recommendations and assess the extent to which national results could be comparable at international level. Each round was concluded by a thematic summary highlighting the key outputs and lessons learnt from the discussions along the major areas of thoughts for the WAW typology development which included the following items:

o objective and use of typology for policy, o source of information / database, o issues with major distinguishing criteria proposed to develop typology (labor,

management/status and product/market orientation), o other emerging criteria (such as off-farm, specialization etc.), o tools and methods to build and analyze typology, o next steps for future methodological development,

https://dgroups.org/?l3vc3x9t

o discussions and comparisons to other country case studies. The present section is organized into two main parts. First, a description of report templates and general guidelines are discussed in subsection 3.1. This sub-section also presents an overview of the country typologies which emerged despite having only a general set of instructions. Subsection 3.2 presents the major findings at country level concerning the application and combination of selected criteria, issues with data sources and methodological approach. Throughout this sub-section, lessons, recommendations and pending issues related to the overall typology implementation procedure are included. 3.1 Initial common framework and varied end results Each country team in charge of implementing the WAW International Typology proposal was given a set of basic guidelines to produce not only their main report but a basic outline that could address the following key issues:

o Introduction and assessment of the 3 distinguishing criteria (Management, Labor and Commercialization), their translation into indicators based on existing variables, the threshold used and the combinations of distinguishing criteria into types. (See Table 1)

o Decisions on methodological approach to clean and select data and obtain different types (definitions of indicators, modalities to combine criteria, analytical process). A particular preference was given to Census sources since it was assumed that it would increase comparability of results across countries.

o Results or discussion on how emerging types were characterized along the different assets of the livelihood framework (descriptive analysis of types)

o Involvement of stakeholders at key stages and comparing to existing data and realities (Policy Relevance of country typology)

o Recommendations for the next steps including for typology implementation process, WAW role, method selection and data constraints

Table 1: Considerations around the three distinguishing criteria

Distinguishing Criteria

Thresholds

Management / Legal Status

Household (HH) management Non-Household or Corporate management

Labor Usage Only or mostly family Mixed and / or at least 1 permanent hired labor

Only hired labor

Commercialization / Self-Consumption

Semi-subsistence

Commercial Semi-subsistence

Commercial

Commercial

Although a common template was proposed to enable each country partners to bring up the key elements mentioned above and to guide discussions (See annex 2). Country teams were not advised on the actual procedure to build the respective national typology. Instead they were left to confront methodological decisions on the basis of available data and context-specific constraints while keeping as key entry criteria the WAW proposal of three distinguishing criteria. This led to a varied set of country typologies that would require considerable re-arrangement if

they were to be used for direct cross-border comparisons. Next a revision of emerging country typologies is presented along with relevant illustrations and/or tables. France: Table 2 below presents the 18 types of holdings which emerged when crossing the three proposed WAW distinguishing criteria using the French Census. In this particular country case, context-specific indicators and thresholds were used to identify types. In the case of labor the annual work unit was introduced. Regarding legal status, the extensive number of options was summarized into three legal options (individual farm, agricultural farm status and generic company status). In the French case, the further segregation of the labor based category according to the status showed a high heterogeneity with the “agricultural status” category always being two to three times larger in land, economic size and total labor inputs (Figure 2). Such may come from the fact that this legal status allows different holdings to combine and manage their holdings. This implies that they may also be considered a “ cooperative’ type of status. In the case of “agricultural enterprise” category holdings with two family workers / associates were included, whereas the “individual” status includes holdings with only one family worker. Lastly, since self-consumption was not largely reported the analysis on the last criterion was made on the basis of direct versus indirect market relationships.

Table 2: Distribution of the holdings

Direct market relationships Indirect market relationships Total

Individual farm

Agricultural farms status

Generic company

status

Individual farm

Agricultural farms status

Generic company

status

Family farms 77647

(14.4%) 10657 (2%)

1106 (0.2%)

389737 (72%)

58454 (10.8%)

3332 (0.6%)

540933 (100%)

Patronal farms

22358 (19.6%)

14656 (12.9%)

1404 (1.2%)

46485 (40.8%)

27559 (24.2%)

1534 (1.3%)

113996 (100%)

Corporate farms

292 (3.6%)

1464 (18%) 1790

(22.1%) 467

(5.8%) 1843

(22.7%) 2256

(27.8%) 8112

(100%)

Total sample 100297 (15.1%)

26777 (4%) 4300

(0.6%) 436689 (65.9%)

87856 (13.3%)

7112 (1.1%)

663031 (100%)

Figure 2: France Typology

x

Madagascar: In the case of Madagascar, eight different types of holdings were identified. As in the case of France, the selections of indicators for the different distinguishing criteria were driven by data availability. One particular point of interest in this particular case study was that sources from both census and household surveys were considered and analyzed. Figure 3 below presents the emerging typology. As it may be observed, the labor usage status was analyzed on the basis of family versus hired labor but a distinction was made in terms of temporary versus permanent hired labor. Since the observed units were only household holdings the legal status criterion was discarded. Lastly, concerning the commercialization criterion, a quantitative approach was introduced in terms of percentage of sold output.

Figure 3: Madagascar Typology

Nicaragua: The typology building process in the case of Nicaragua followed a step by step procedure. The starting point was the usage of labor, however, the impossibility to observe family labor led to a distinction of types of holdings on the basis of reported hired labor. The latter was ratified by information on the legal status but also on the presence of hired management. Once this step was finalized (as illustrated in Figure 4), the resulting categories were sub-divided into types of production system because the information on self-consumption/commercialization from census sources proved to be unreliable and contradictory. Ultimately, up to 19 different holdings based on their predominant production system were identified.

Figure 4: Nicaragua Typology

Vietnam: In Vietnam the produced typology consisted of five key types of holdings. Again the available data prevented the analysis of non-household holdings and the assessment was mainly based on the percentage of family labor and output sold. In this particular implementation exercise, statistical methods were used to re-accommodate observations into the five resulting types of holdings. The five types are detailed in Figure 5. For comparison purposes it can be stated that types 1 and 3 are family farms aimed at self-subsistence and market orientation respectively. Types 2, 4 and 5 represent patronal farms with different degrees in terms of size but all of them strongly advocated to commercial purposes.

Figure 5: Vietnam Typology

Malawi: The Malawi country typology also came up with five types mainly identified on the basis of labor usage and market orientation. The presence of non-household holdings was limited and the resulting types have a household or family labor component to different degrees. Once again the established thresholds to allocate observations between types are highly context-specific (See Figure 6). For the Malawi case study, it appears that the combination of commercialization and labor was powerful to discriminate holdings with different assets, strategies and income which also allowed moving from an initial set of 12 types to only 5 types.

Figure 6: Malawi Typology

Other interesting examples of typologies reviewed in this report but which were developed outside the WAW methodological framework are the cases of Brazil and Argentina. These are briefly described below. Argentina: The typology building exercise in Argentina was particularly focused on capturing the situation of small family farmers. For this purpose labor usage was a crucial starting point. Unlike WAW approach, the focus was then shifted to capital endowment as a way to sub-categorize holdings according to four levels (minimum, small, medium and major capital holdings). Capital was measured in terms of land area, percentage of employment and production value (Figure 7). The latter allowed identifying the smallest and most vulnerable family farm types. If the farm reported more than two permanent workers it did not fit the definition of family farm for this particular typology. Figure 7: Argentina Typology

Brazil: In Brazil, the typology was, as in the case of Argentina, aimed at capturing the situation of family farmers. For this purpose a definition of family farming was introduced and any holding that did not fit the criteria was immediately catalogued as belonging to the non-family farming sector (Figure 8). Such criteria mainly referred to the usage of family labor versus hired labor: if the proportion of family labor was higher then it belonged to the family farming sector. Similarly, total area had to be less than the maximum regional area. Reported income was used to sub-categorize family farms and it was compared to the regional opportunity cost of labor. Ultimately four different types of family farmers emerged and there was not much analysis on the so called-non-family farming sector which for all purposes may have well contained a series of patronal farms.

Type A

General criteria

the producer works directly on the farm

the producer doesn't employ non family permanent workers

the producer may hire temporary non family labor.

Specific criteria by region

No tractor

Up to 50 UG*

Up to 2 ha of irrigated area

Non fruit trees

Type B

General criteria





Tractor plus than 15 years old

Between 51 and 100 UG

Between 2 ha and 5 ha of irrigated area

Up to 0.5 ha with fruit trees

Type C

General criteria





Tractor less than 15 years old

More than 100 UG

More than 5 ha of irrigated area

More than 0.5 ha with fruit trees

Greenhouses

Type D

General criteria


the producer may employ until 2 non family permanent workers



Tractor less than 15 years old

More than 100 UG*

More than 5 ha of irrigated area

More than 0.5 ha with fruit trees

Greenhouses

Figure 8: Brazil Typology

Intermediate conclusions of overview of country typologies The application and combination of criteria and related indicators appeared to offer types with significant different characteristics in terms of assets and strategies at country level which is a desirable outcome. However, the thresholds used for each category and the emergent types were largely country specific. This implies that for international comparisons findings either had to be re-arranged into broader types or direct correlations would not be feasible. The variation in used thresholds was not trivial particularly because indicators were different. For the case of labor, the indicators were varied and the CIRAD proposal of at least one permanent worker to identify patronal farms was not largely implemented. Instead relative presence of hired to family labor were used and each varied in terms of specificity and number of sub-types. As evidenced, the legal status or management style variable was also very context-driven. Lastly, the thresholds relative to commercialization were clearly different across countries, with the need to bring up types with almost no sales (around 10-20% thresholds) for Madagascar and Malawi, and a similar “almost subsistence category” emerging for Vietnam (with 17%) while in France self-consumption oriented types were almost non-existent (1%).

3.2 Main theoretical and methodological findings from national case studies 3.2.1 Review on distinguishing criteria Labor Usage:

The initial CIRAD labor category proposed in WAW framework was to distinguish holdings with family labor, identifying those without hired permanent labor (family category) from those using at least one permanent hired worker (patronal). Corporate holdings were considered for those with 100% hired labor. As stated, such proposal was examined under an international literature review and expert consultations process. Labor usage was indeed found to be an important variable across the literature review, particularly to identify family farms. But the literature review showed a wide scope of methods, difficulties in calculating notably family labor and highlighted that such criterion was most often used combined with others. Therefore, the WAW revised proposal suggested a slightly broader selection of distinguishing criteria for typology building that is legal status and self-consumption/commercialization orientation. Although a particular emphasis was placed upon using management/legal status to reinforce the identification of family, patronal and corporate farming. The adaptation of the proposal led to various categorizations partly due to the type of indicator available for the criterion of labor usage, for instance:

o France team started with the initial CIRAD proposal but had to incorporate context-specific statistical thresholds particularly around temporary hired labor in the patronal category (i.e. the patronal category included farms with less than 82% of family labor) (Figure 9). The characterization of farms was made using the variable related to familial and wage labor. The latter was broken down into 3 categories (Figure 7). Three categories of labor composition employed by farm holdings are distinguished: (i) corporate farms where wage labor only is engaged (at least more than 95% of wage labor out of total employed labor); (ii) Patronal farms where permanent non familial labor is employed or where the amount of wage labor is high relatively to total labor; (iii) Family farms that rely heavily on family labor. To this classification the legal status and commercialization distinguishing criteria were added. This led to the emergence of somewhat “odd” types such as corporate farms with individual legal status which in reality should have been allocated under the patronal holdings. Another important difference with respect to other country typologies is that the annual work unit was used for calculations, while other case studies had to perform context-specific transformations to aggregate both family and hired labor.

Figure 9: France: Incorporation of labor usage criteria

o Madagascar also attempted to use CIRAD original proposal but was confronted with a very limited sample of patronal and corporate holdings as defined in the initial WAW framework. As a result, the focus was shifted to an in-depth classification of family farms. By focusing on the number of family versus temporary and permanent hired workers, new family farm categories emerged. A key distinction was based between those family farmers not using any hired labor and those using temporary hired labor (refer once again to Figure 3).

o Nicaragua team was the closest to the CIRAD proposal but was confronted with the impossibility to use the variable on family labor which was unavailable in the national census database. It therefore used other variable to cross check outliers and refine categories such as the presence of external labor (captured in the form of a qualitative question) on one hand and the legal status and hired management, nature of respondent etc. on the other) (Figure 4). Consequently a threshold on the actual number of external to family workers was not feasible.

o The other country teams used the overall share of hired labor vs total labor (Vietnam, Malawi, Brazil, Figures 5, 6 and 8) and the variable was also often combined with criteria of legal status and/or management style.

o Argentina used a similar method but included in family farms holding with up to 2 permanent workers, those without permanent workers being considered as small holders (Figure 7).

There were a series of practical advantages but also challenges in the handling of the labor usage criterion and related context-specific indicators, these are listed below:

1. Labor usage proved most often pertinent to discriminate types, with an apparent positive correlation between hired labor and assets and most often specialization patterns in

Total number of holdings

663041

Family labour present

654,929 holdings

Family farms

540,933 holdings

patronal farms

113,996 holdings

More than 95% of wage labour

8,112 holdings

Corporate (or entrepreneurial)

agriculture

8,112 holdings

agriculture. In the cases of France and Nicaragua a strong correlation between the use of hired labor and production systems was evident. Productive systems have an impact on the structural characteristics of the farm, for instance, in France, labor intensive system such as vineyard, fruits and vegetables farms were over-represented in corporate and patronal farms. Similarly, The type of labor used and the nature of the holder occupation can be useful to start disaggregating further the diversity of family farms:

a. Separating those not using any hired labor (even temporary) proved useful in the context of Madagascar, as it seems to quite well approach categories with the least assets and cash flow. In Vietnam also some types emerged without any hired labor, with significant different features. The absence of hired labor may indicate either that the holding really does not have the cash, or that the farm is small and under-using the available family labor. However, daily hired labor can be replaced sometimes by external inputs (for instance weeding can be carried out by additional hired temporary labor or by using weedicide) or agricultural services (hiring services of a tractor operator instead of temporary labor to plough). Also, it may be less meaningful or have different meanings in more mechanized production systems with less need of such temporary labor. In other words, the characterization of of not relying on temporary hired labor can be a relevant approach in selected but not necessarily all contexts. It may also require additional descriptive analysis related to access to specific inputs or services.

b. Nicaragua team highlighted the relevance of identifying holdings which are selling their family labor force as unskilled daily agricultural workers. Such indeed was deemed useful in the targeting of holdings with reduced assets, low human capital (evidenced by not being able to access better job opportunities), limited natural or physical resources (family labor not being occupied as they could), urgent cash needs along the crop season and/or limited farm returns(making agricultural limited wages a desirable alternative). Interestingly Madagascar and Malawi showed that such type of holdings was indeed over-represented in the category not using any hired labor. Malawi’s additional literature review also showed that the type and importance of off farm activity was an important discriminatory criterion

2. Specific difficulties regarding the use of “permanent worker” to delineate “patronal farms” a. The use of permanent worker under the CIRAD proposal is the main tool to identify

patronal from the family farm category. This indicator entails specific differences in terms of assets and strategies but with variances in interpretations according to contexts and data availability, as evidenced by country reports. In France, on average family farms are smaller than patronal farms, have less income and higher productivity of labor (meaning that family labor is “over used”). The differences relate not only to the capacity to pay yearly salary or to the size of the holding but most importantly to the relative differences in available family labor. The latter makes the establishment of a quantitative threshold based on labor usage a blurred business. In Malawi case, they could not use the criterion “hired permanent worker” to delineate family from patronal farms. Instead they came up with four labor based categories: pure family, family labor > hired labor, hired labor < family labor (considered as “patronal farm”) and pure hired labor. It is interesting to note that the average total amount of hired labor does not seem to be equivalent to that of a permanent worker. The latter suggests that in seasonal production systems with peaks of labor, there may not be the need for permanent workers and a holder

may rely significantly or even fully on daily and seasonal workers. Thus making the identification of farms on the basis of permanent hired labor useless.

b. Some of the discussions highlighted that the original CIRAD proposal, not allowing for any kind of permanent hired labor in the family farming sector, may be too strict and was sometimes difficult to apply with existing data. Besides, it did not allow combination of hired labor with temporary and contractual work, which may be increasingly important in some countries and in very seasonal agricultural contexts. On the other hand, most definitions used in Latin America, including the overall regional criteria agreed upon by REAF (“Reunion Especializada sobre Agricultural Familiar”), allow for 1 to 2 permanent hired labor. Argentina typology considers that smallholder family farms cannot have permanent hired labor but family farms may have up to two units.

c. Difficult to build strictly comparable categories with existing labor data: In the case of Nicaragua, it is possible to assess the number of permanent worker but cannot measure family labor and build a criterion on the share of family vs hired labor (Nicaragua). The latter suggests that one of the main difficulties associated to labor usage is the diversity in which it is measured in the different context-specific data sources, particularly when it comes to identifying permanent as well as temporary hired labor with respect to family labor engagement in the holding.

d. Another limitation to the CIRAD proposal around permanent workers is that there may be different concepts over permanent worker regarding the seasonal character of some production systems (over a season, all year round, over 8 months etc..). The latter is also connected to the nature of informal labor, weak legal context and reduced job opportunities. There is also the possibility that temporary workers are employed on a continuous basis. In other words, farms without permanent worker can rely mostly on hired daily labor and contractual services. Therefore, in any case, further checking is required according to context to reincorporate daily workers and contractual services in the making of categories (The latter also emerged in the case of France and Vietnam from stakeholders’ meeting)

e. During E-discussion it was suggested that such labor usage thresholds may be too strict and that capital-oriented categories of family holding may be considered. Yet this puts pressure on the availability of such data. Similarly, the extent of mechanization and/or external input use may relate to decisions which are affected by the institutional environment (availability of hired labor and costs of such inputs) rather than reflecting the nature of the family farm management. In other words, this aspect tackles on the assumptions that family farm with limited hired labor may also be less capitalized. However, as argued above holdings may choose to hire labor or to mechanize and specific use inputs according to labor availability and cost of alternative means of production. Therefore, we may encounter very capitalized holding without hired labor. Ultimately, this calls for a descriptive analysis of types which includes both capital level analysis as well as a territorial approach.

3. Issues regarding family/hired labor usage data to characterize family, patronal and corporate categories:

a. We may have different interpretation of family worker and salaried family worker: for instance in France, there is a number of cooperative holdings gathering two families. They are considered both as family worker and sometimes hired family worker. However, EU guidelines regarding census imposes to consider such associates as permanent non family worker.

b. Mis or under reporting of family labor: most case studies showed types without reported family labor but with obvious signs of family labor (hired total work superior to hired labor, yet no family labor reported in France). Nicaragua showed that the variable on family labor was inconsistent, partly due to the inability to fully access the relevant data.

c. An interesting practice from France and Europe was the concept of annual work unit (AWU), which is used to calculate both family and hired labor inputs. Each contribution is assessed approximatively according to the number of months worked per year and number of hours per week, enabling to build approximate categories from part time to full time worker. Such can help verify further the existence of permanent worker and its labor contribution but can also help assess whether the holder and family member are full time or par time. This approach however, is demanding on data and it may not be feasible in other contexts, unless census guidelines and implementation are transformed accordingly.

d. Labor usage is still a very generic approach to define family, patronal and corporate farms. Family farm remains a very large and heterogeneous segment, patronal farms are in themselves a type of family farm and they are also highly diverse (some closer to family farms, others to corporate). Patronal farms may rely on little family labor and eventually on a hired manager, thus becoming closer to “absentee land owners”.

e. Both Madagascar and Malawi showed cases of agricultural households of small size, focused on self-consumption but with only hired labor. Such clearly did not correspond to corporate types with corporate management aiming at maximizing returns on investments. It may thus be required to combine variables to really apprehend corporate farms, in other words it is necessary to go beyond the presence of hired labor and absence of family work. Country experience showed interest to combine with legal status, at least to cross check types and ensure that corporate farms have a hired manager and are not from the household sector, meaning that they are operated by a legal entity including non-family investors

Legal status / Management The initial CIRAD proposal suggested in WAW framework did not refer to a legal status or management style variable. The international literature review however suggested that “it is worth considering that in a context of poor data availability (particularly regarding labor indicators), the holding status is often an easy way to access variable that can supplement or corroborate the labor usage criterion largely to identify large individual/private holdings from corporate ones.” Legal statuses are very differently defined among countries and country-specific analysis and expertise is needed to infer whether status is connected to different types of management (notably enterprise / corporate management vs family management). Different proxies were used, either to build sub-categories or to refine labor based categories among the country case studies. They were based on two major types of variables: those relating to legal status (meant to basically distinguish between household and corporate holdings) and those relating to the type of management (by family or by hired manager). Another indirect objective of this criterion is to reflect the nature of holding business logic, whether it is based on maximization of returns on investments (profit rate) or on the direct generation of agricultural incomes.

The relevance and feasibility to use such criteria was very different according to country and particularly to country datasets. For instance, the criterion was not useable in some contexts, either because there are no useable variable (i.e. Madagascar census uses a concept of modern and traditional holding which is unrelated in terms of status and management) or the entire sample belongs to household sector (household data set in Malawi, Vietnam, Madagascar) thus making it unnecessary to use this criterion to separate between household and non-household managed holdings. In other cases, the use and interpretation of legal status and management styles should be carried with special precaution, as legal status is country-specific and not directly related to household vs corporate sector (refer to the situation in France where particular legal status is offered to family farmers). Similarly, corporate status and hired manager was effectively used in combination with labor to make up respective farm category and check for outliers (Nicaragua, Brazil, Argentina). Some results and lessons learnt around the usage of legal status include the following:

1. The most important aspect of legal status/management style criterion is to distinguish household sector from corporate sector, which requires a local based interpretation and knowledge of signification of legal status. For instance, in France a number of household holdings, mainly based on family labor, choose a more corporate status, this does not mean that their nature as family farms is lost but it has a different label for national administrative purposes. Also in the case of France, formal corporate status may often involve some specific accountancy and asset reporting, therefore implying a different strategy of management (return on asset and not only labor) (Box 1).

2. The legal status of holdings can also be blurred when family farms work with waged family labor. In some countries, holdings increasingly adopt a specific status for family labor, either as associates or family workers. Such enables the recognition of the work, collection of pension etc… but also potentially limits the flexibility of the holding to minimize the family labor retribution (notably if such family labor is not part of the same household). Although waged family labor may be a sign of financially strong holdings, capable of providing a waged contribution to family labor, it also partially changes the nature of the relationship at farm level making it more profit rather than income oriented.

3. In the same line, it was urged to work further on “cooperative” type of status, which can combine different individual family farms and mainly be based on family labor. In terms of statistics, such “cooperative” farm may automatically classify as “patronal farm” as associates may be considered as waged worker (Eurostat imposes such transformations which tend to decrease the share of family farms in France). Also, in the census guidelines, it is not very clear whether such cooperative still belongs to the household sector. Indeed, they often have a legal entity beyond one single household. However, since cooperatives can attain not only larger size, attract more labor, undertake decisions that go beyond the family level, and management involves exchanges among different partners its non-family, non-household orientation appears rather dominant. A similar situation can be found in terms of joint managed household holdings. Such joint management reduces the advocated proximity between single family and farm, and also may imply or facilitate “investment returns” logic and decrease the view of transmission between generations within the same family. Also, part of the assumed characteristic of family farm is to have limited size, considering the limitation of family labor (such may still be very high considering the production systems). Such “aggregation” mechanism can enable larger size while only relying on family labor. For instance, in the French study, there is a specific

status for such joint farms (GAEC or “Groupement Agricole d'Exploitation en Commun”). Pure family farms with GAEC status are much larger than single family farms and similar to patronal farms with individual status. Therefore, such holdings may have specific characteristics and may be of interest to policy makers, often wishing to find ways to “aggregate” family farms.

4. The use of the variable “hired manager” was found very useful to ensure that all “family farms” are indeed managed by the family (Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina) leaving to patronal farms the cases where household-own holdings are managed by a hired employee.

5. Finally, the overall recommendation regarding this criterion was to use such variable in combination with others (particularly labor), according to context and not to simply duplicate all categories.

Box 1: Family farms, legal status and capital ownership

In many countries, family farms have no legal status or a single farm status, however, in France, the adoption of legal status of enterprises is encouraged for family farms and a number of specifically adapted agricultural status are proposed to facilitate i) the separation of family capital and farm capital, protecting better the family in case of bankruptcy; ii) enabling the recognition of the associates and their roles in the operation of the farm (spouse, brothers etc..). The evolution of status is directly connected to the increased capital of the farms and difficulties to transmit it. Indeed, transmissions within the family to a single holder have become increasingly difficult as the capital and value of the farm increase. It was recently analyzed that in 2012, the average total asset of a farm in France is 359,000 euro with an increasing share of farmers, notably the younger ones, being indebted beyond 65%. In conjunction, fewer farmers adopt an individual status and usually chose other kinds of company status, which enable a progressive transmission of the capital (for instance, the son cannot reimburse the full family capital so sister and parents remain as joint holders, associates and get some shares etc..) or facilitates entry of other investors.

Different statuses are proposed with different implications on the operation and management of the farm, the relative retribution of work vs capital, the tax etc. The “Groupement Agricole d'Exploitation en Commun” (GAEC) is a non-trading partnership allowing farmers in partnership to work together under conditions that are comparable to those existing in family farms. With only farmers being allowed to be joint holder (and not outside investors). Beyond the labor input, such kind of status and the source of the capital have implication on the management of the farm and its family attributes, with increasing need to also maximize the profit on capital invested.

http://www.terresdeurope.net/en/compare-types-company-farming-france.asp

Marketing and Production Orientation There was a very different data availability and quality across countries for the case of capturing self-consumption/marketing or output orientation at holding level. Three main modalities were used: 1) use of qualitative variable “declared purpose is mainly self-consumption or not” (France); 2) share of sales to total output produced (Madagascar, Vietnam, Malawi); 3) proxy based on the combination of production, identification of major product and degree of diversification, and type of market channel (i.e. highlighting specific production system more connected to export or local markets, to self-consumption (patio farming) diversified or specialized etc.) (Nicaragua). Such method goes beyond main production orientation and combines variables and knowledge on production systems, agro-ecological conditions, level of production and meaning of the production in terms of integration in value chains (export, urban value chain, local market and self-consumption). The indicators were calculated crossing the land size of each products or the number of heads of cattle and the spatial localization of the farm regarding the different agro-ecological regions of the country (Nicaragua). Some results pertaining to the degree of commercialization included: 1. The distribution of subsistence versus commercial farms is obviously very different across

regions and may be under-estimated in more developed countries. For instance, there is a category not declaring any sales in Madagascar (20%) meanwhile around 21% of holding in Vietnam have around 32% sales for their entire output. In France, semi-subsistence farms (those reporting less than 50% sales out of total output) represent 1% of holdings and may be partially excluded from national census thresholds if they report 1ha or less. Similarly in Argentina the 0.5 ha minimum may exclude “patio” production. Commercial types are usually more endowed and specialized in agriculture (Madagascar, Vietnam, Malawi). Such provides room to suggest that differentiating labor based types according to marketing orientation may be useful to approach further different strategies and endowments, but further analysis would be required.

2. Discussions and results showed also more complex correlation between level of commercialization, food security and poverty. The less commercialized are not necessarily the poorest (Malawi, Vietnam) since some farm hire labor despite reporting limited sales. This is may be related to the fact that most of their income may originate from outside agriculture. For instance, in Malawi case, the full subsistence types were always better equipped, with higher off farm income and daily salaries).

3. Share of sales is not always an indicator that the holding has some surplus to sell but it can also be an indicator that the holding lacks other sources of cash and needs to sell some during harvest, and buy again food during the lean season. Therefore, it may be useful to distinguish the sellers who actually sell a surplus, from those who sell to buy later. The existence of cash crop also appears a potential distinguishing criterion for better endowed holdings.

4. There is room to look at commercialization in conjunction with types of off farm income and use of labor. Notably, it appears relevant to distinguish semi-subsistence holdings whose main source of income is outside agriculture (to distinguish what some countries call “household plot”, patio farm, hobby and leisure farm etc…) from those who are specialized in agriculture.

5. Questions were raised on the reliability and feasibility of using such commercialization criterion with census. Pure qualitative question on destination of production raised a number of incoherence in Nicaragua (for instance coffee used mainly for animal consumption). Also, it is important to take into account that the destination may not only be crop-driven: holdings may have some staple production mainly meant for food consumption and others mainly

meant for cash. Ideally, we would need approximate total production and total sales for each crop, but it is most often not available in national census.

6. Discussions highlighted different views on the usefulness of the variable, some suggesting it was a key entry point (Vietnam), others that it may be useful to highlight still the importance of self-consumption and non-market economy. Others said that it was useful but with further analysis required given the great variation in thresholds. Madagascar and Malawi cases plead for lower thresholds (0-20% sales), Vietnam brought together a household semi-subsistence farm category with 52% sales on average. While 50% is an international threshold proposed in WCA2020 which is also in line with other international proposal (in FAO guidelines, in EC census, France 2010 census, experts on topic, etc.) Nicaragua did not propose a threshold in its typology. Instead it approached market orientation through an aggregated index based on production system, strongly dependent on expert knowledge and rich census information (see Box 2)

Box 2: Using production systems to identify types Analysis done along production systems most often showed very different distribution of production systems across types, with family farms being most often the most diversified, while corporate farms being the most specialized in specific production systems (Nicaragua), maybe notably those requiring more manual labor. In the France case study, we could see a much stronger occurrence of fruit, vegetables, vineyard in patronal and corporate farms. As production systems have very different features (particularly in land requirement, value per land etc.), it may influence significantly the characterization of types thus blurring the results. Nicaragua highlighted that such generates too much heterogeneity within labor based types and carried out robustness analysis within specific production systems. In this respect, most discussions commended the work carried out by Nicaragua in integrating production systems and recommend integrating such kind of analysis on production systems within the WAW framework, particularly to enrich the descriptive analysis of identified types. Such analysis can be a descriptive variable but also serves to build further sub-types. However, remarks were made on the need to decrease the number of categories and if possible to build comparable ones across regions. The French case provides highlights on the OTEX method, standardized in the European union, with nine categories based on main and secondary products, with specific economic thresholds. Such method was considered difficult to implement based on existing census data and its applicability outside Europe was a concern. Another issue was the ability to effectively translate productive activities in monetary terms, which is the only way to aggregate productions and calculate such indices. The latter may however present complications as monetary-based indices are harder to compare at international level.

3.2.2 Combining distinguishing criteria: degree of aggregation The interpretation and application of the distinguishing criteria can lead to a variable number of types. For instance, Nicaragua had initially over 30 production systems for the production orientation to be combined with three labor based category, the latter were later reduced to 19. France came out with 18 categories after combining indicators from the three distinguishing criteria while Malawi came up initially with 12 (later reduced to six). On the other hand, the cluster approach used by Vietnam led to five combined categories.

E-discussion highlighted that, for policy purpose, a limited number of types need to be proposed (6 to 8 were suggested as ideal) for the sake of efficient policy discussion, particularly at international level. On the other hand, experience showed the added value to keep well disaggregated approaches that can contribute to different analyses at national and regional level (Argentina case study). Similarly, too broad categories may be too heterogeneous and not make

any sense to national or local stakeholders. These aspects highlight the necessity of flexibility in typology building. Such issue was diversely dealt with and frequently in the case studies the number of types was reduced in different ways:

o In the cases where the three criteria were combined with pre-established thresholds theoretical and empirical knowledge was used to combine and merge categories known or considered similar or with too little occurrence (Nicaragua approach was to merge initial production systems). In a similar and complementary manner, descriptive statistics were introduced to analyze differences among types regarding important factors outside the distinguishing criteria which served to also guide merging based on complementary expert judgment (Malawi approach to bring 12 types into six)

o Another approach was to consider one criterion as more important (usually labor), the other being used to check up, verify or remove outliers but not strictly combined (frequently legal status). For instance, labor use seemed to have been the main criteria for Nicaragua case, management and legal status criteria only used to remove outliers or spot incongruences.

o In the same way, based on empirical knowledge and logical allocations, the typology can assume a more limited number of types. For instance assuming that all corporate farms have corporate status and that no corporate farm is devoted mainly self-consumption can accommodate observations and avoid double counting. Then, unallocated observations corresponding to different combinations are further assessed and reallocated to the closer category (by statistical analysis and or context specific information.)

o Statistical methods may be used to reallocate observations across the categories and merge some categories. For example, predictive discriminant analysis can be useful to classify subjects into one of several groups (WAW, 2013 Consultancy Report)

During D-group discussion and E-conferences, specific questions were raised: 1) how to deal with categories with a reduced number of observations (such as mainly “corporate” categories in Madagascar and Malawi). Shall they be removed or merged? What happens if they have a specific characteristic and interest for policy?; 2). What to do with “outliers” or difficult to place observations? Which criterion should be dominant in case of conflicting cases? In most cases, the E-discussion appealed to context-specific constraints and situations in order to allocate observations to given types or to even introduce particular categories. For instance, a strong point of discussion turned around the modalities to combine criteria related to labor and management, bringing up reflections on their relative importance on the structure and strategy of the farm. It was highlighted that labor was the most important entry point and management a verification additional criteria. Yet others considered that in some case, the legal status and management is more important and should dictate the group: “If you have a farm which is run individually by a given family member, even if this person relies mostly on paid labor (of family or non-family origin) to work on the farm, it should remain a patronal farm by definition (such as the cases of Latifundia in Latin America with frequently absent-owners which nonetheless dictate major investment decisions). On the other hand, a farm managed by a group of individuals, an organization or shareholders, even if hiring family members of one of the managing board should be, in principle, catalogued as a corporate farm managed by a non-household entity.” (WAW E-discussion 2014). However, situations may be more complex across countries, depending also on the legal framework. For instance, in France, there is a specific status offered to agricultural holdings. Many holdings may have a “company” status with a legal entity. However, such legal entity may only be granted for the family owners and holders. Thus, in this case, the legal status refers in reality to a

family-managed holding and should be categorized as a patronal farm or family farm depending on labor usage decisions. Thus adequate interpretation of context-specific situations is required when analyzing labor usage and legal status and also when deciding which criterion should ultimately decide type allocation in case of apparent contradictions. Three options to deal with such contradictions emerged from country case studies and E-conferences 1) to make new sub-categories (for instance, divide corporate farm category relying only on hired labor between those with a corporate status and those with more informal status (religious institutions, other type of associations, cooperatives) ; 2) consider that the isolated cases are few and do not modify the characteristics of the sub-sample and therefore keep them in one or the other category (eventually running discriminant analysis to ensure and verify that types are adequately allocated); 3) consider that one variable is more important than the other and that the other one is just a verifying variable, therefore dealing with contradictions in a case by case basis.

Another strong point of discussion was the implications of national-level combination of criteria on the international comparability of types. “Can we agree on one preferred option from international level? Or should data-driven country approaches be prioritized?” Different ways forward were considered from E-discussion. The WAW international typology may offer a limited but meaningful number of categories and correlated variables which can be compared between countries. Such, comparison does not need to be strict among types defined (i.e. types being exactly the same), but can be done conceptually, among types presenting overall similar management logic, or looking at similar variable correlations and trends of evolution. If different methods are used to develop typologies that are relevant at country level, comparability may be somewhat compromised but engaging stakeholders, confronting with field knowledge and providing further statistical analysis may help to assess the minimum number of types and degree of heterogeneity which make sense, in the respective country context. Such may be achieved by merging some types, while introducing further differentiation criteria for others. It may lead to different categories at national level, but which could be compared to the overall WAW proposed categories and correlated variables at international level if general classifications are preserved before meeting national-specific sub-type classification. 3.2.3 Issues and recommendations regarding sources of data

The different case studies revealed that data usage in the development of national typologies was a critical aspect. The sources as evidenced in Table 3 were varied and a series of issues emerged:

Table 3: Main types of data used in country case studies

Country Data used

Madagascar Data from the national census + household survey data from the “ROR” (“Réseau des Observatoires Ruraux”)

Vietnam Vietnam LSMS (data base is called: VHLSS) Selected part of census (difficult access)

Nicaragua desk study Census openly accessible except details of labor, later obtained (variable 82)

France Census 2000 and census 2010

Malawi IHS3 (panel household survey along LSMS-ISA type) confronted with literature review on typology carried out

Country Data used

Brazil Census analysis based on first series of agrarian diagnosis

Argentina Census

1. Access to micro data of census has revealed very difficult and lengthy process. Some

partners finally seem not to be able to access it and used household surveys as in the cases of Malawi and Vietnam where only partial access to census was secured. The latter implied that the sample of holding observations did not cover all potential sectors (particularly corporate sector) and many structural variables were missing.

2. Quality and compatibility of census data: Census quality was variable from one country to another and it introduced different context-relevant terminologies and variables, making direct international comparison difficult. Particular aspects of comparability emerged around the following items:

a. Variations in the unit of observation. In agricultural census the agricultural holding was observed and measured in country specific ways while in surveys observations included the rural households whether fully dependent on farming or not.

b. The variables related to labor use (family vs hired labor) are not part of the core module of the census and therefore different types of indicators usually emerged in the data. Quantitative assessment of hired labor vs family labor was also difficult as they were not always accounted for, or only for a few parcels of the holdings (as in the case of Madagascar).

c. Variable related to legal status / management was also very different across case studies. Sometimes the legal status is used for administrative / taxes reasons, and does not always reveal different types of management (as evidenced in the French case study)

d. Variable related to marketing orientation is often captured qualitatively in census (i.e. self declared purpose of production, as proposed in the core module). Although it appears useful as a first estimate, its qualitative natured rendered it subjective with some holdings declaring “self consumption” for tax-related purpose. When such variable is not existent, it is often difficult to capture in quantitative terms the share of production being sold and to establish thresholds. Moreover, the percentage may vary from year to year, and it would entail a detailed knowledge of production processes, information often not included in census. Nicaragua team tried to approach this limitation with a proxy of specific cash crops but it turned out a very time and data consuming task.

3. As census often aims to be quite comprehensive, it is costly to implement and often

contains limited amount of characterizing data, making descriptive analysis of types limited or troublesome:

a. Often, census only captures agricultural activities. Yet, as part of overall agricultural and rural transformations, diversification of activities within agricultural value chains (processing, marketing etc.) and outside (waged labor, other activities etc.) is an important trend, with an important share of holdings not mainly relying on agriculture but alternative livelihoods as well. Therefore, census may not integrate information of these other sources of livelihoods. Yet, it seems an important factor to consider in the discrimination of holdings or at least in their characterization. Recently, EU incorporated diversification of income as part of its overall typology

and recommendations for census data. It would be good that such is also incorporated in census guidelines, although it can be expected to increase costs.

b. Lastly, census does not capture minimum variables regarding production notably quantitative aspects related to production, both on volume and value. Assumptions had to be made for each agro-ecological zone based on assumed yield and prices. Such calculations were essential to estimate contribution of holding to production as well as to estimate productive orientation and/or income from other non-agricultural activities. The latter is crucial to have a consolidated overview of income and the relative importance of self-consumption (as evidenced in the Argentinian case study).

c. Issue around scope of national census and its units (concept of holding vs household). The Nicaragua case study highlighted issues along census units of observations: it seems that in some areas, large scale farm are not analyzed as one unit, but as several sub-units. It can also be a problem when farms have several plots in several municipalities. The latter results in not only potential inaccurate accounting of existing farms but also in a misinterpretation on the type of farm observed under census. The case of Vietnam brings back the issue around the purpose and scope of censuses and the connection with Household (HH) surveys: Indeed, the Vietnam team could not use the census as a main source as it was by-passing an important segment of Vietnamese agricultural production, namely the smaller agricultural households, not registered / considered as farms, yet representing an important part of the food production. In these two examples, the question is “who are we observing? For the case of Vietnam, it was not very clear whether the sample in which they built their typology referred mainly to households largely specialized in agriculture, all households with some degree of agricultural activities or households that had a registered farm certificate. The Argentinean case study also provided examples of issues around units incorporated to the census. The census only considers holding above 0.5 ha and which sell partly to the market, excluding full subsistence farms and potentially part of the “household garden/patio farms”. Such examples stresses further the need of improved correspondence between census and household (HH) surveys and the usefulness for censuses to have a broad enough scope to capture the diversity of agricultural holding (including “household/peasant/subsistence holdings” who may also be engaged in other non-farming activities). Yet censuses are the obvious choice when it comes to capturing all potential types of agricultural holdings and provide an integrated frame for comparison. Still, there is a clear need to further explicit key concept (such as what is an agricultural holding, a agricultural households, a farm etc.) in relation with each country own definitions (Refer to Box 3).

4. Agreement on the added value of combining and comparing other sources. Taking into consideration the abovementioned census limitations, there was an agreement on the need to incorporate other information sources, including experts and policy makers to national typology building exercises. In this respect, Madagascar offered a very interesting example combining census and ROR data in a particular location. Nicaragua and Brazil suggested combining typology development with more qualitative field assessment based on agrarian diagnosis method and selected informants. Vietnam put forward the combination of census results with LSMS data, which is very detailed but can only inform household holding, therefore excluding more corporate forms.

Box 3: Opening up a debate: agricultural holding and households under the WAW typology The WAW international typology referred to agricultural HOLDINGS as defined in the world program of census, which holds strong similarity with concept of “agricultural households” (such as brought up in the Wye handbook on rural statistics). “An agricultural holding is an economic unit of agricultural production under single management comprising all livestock kept and all land used wholly or partly for agricultural production purposes, without regard to title, legal form, or size. Single management may be exercised by an individual or household, jointly by two or more individuals or households, by a clan or tribe, or by a juridical person such as a corporation, cooperative or government agency. The holding's land may consist of one or more parcels, located in one or more separate areas or in one or more territorial or administrative divisions, providing the parcels share the same production means, such as labor, farm buildings, machinery or draught animals.” “There are two types of agricultural holdings: (i) holdings in the household sector - that is, those operated by household members; and (ii) holdings in the non-household sector, such as corporations and government institutions. In most countries, the majority of agricultural production is in the household sector. The concept of “agricultural holding” is therefore closely related to the concept of “household”. (Extracts from FAO, 2005 and 2007)

“For the household sector, there is usually a one-to-one correspondence between an agricultural holding and a household with own-account agricultural production activities; in other words, all the own-account agricultural production activities by members of a given household are usually undertaken under single management. … In the past, some countries have found it difficult to strictly apply the agricultural holding concept in the agricultural census and, instead, have defined the agricultural holding to be equivalent to a household with own-account agricultural production. Usually, there is little difference between an agricultural holding and a household with own-account agricultural production. Equating the agricultural holding and household units has several benefits: simplification of identification, no need to find management, It would bring the concept of agricultural holding into line with the practice already used in previous agricultural censuses in many countries; it would enable the agricultural census to be more easily linked to the population census.; t would facilitate the analysis of household characteristics. ] In some countries, almost all households have some own-account agricultural production activities, such as keeping a few chickens or having a small kitchen garden. ]. [In the past, many countries have applied a minimum size limit for inclusion of units in the census or excluded certain areas such as urban centres. This is justified on the grounds that there are usually a large number of very small holdings making little contribution to total agricultural production and it is not cost-effective to include them in the agricultural census. However in many countries, small-scale agriculture makes a significant contribution to household food supplies and is often an important source of supplementary household income…” (FAO World program of Census of Agriculture 2010)

However, in practice, country most often set up thresholds and criteria which narrow the scope of an agricultural holding, also to decrease the cost of census. Often criteria integrate a minimum size, a minimum level of sales, a minimum time devoted to agriculture. Such criteria may even be stricter for family farming in some countries (In Brazil, the holder needs to derive 80% of its income to farming to be considered a family farm) etc. Also, in many countries, agricultural holding actually refers to those involved in agriculture and may by-pass some landless peasants, herders, or households involved in forestry, fishery etc. WAW advocates for a reflection on the scope of “agricultural holding” and its correspondence with

agricultural households, with implications regarding data used and its combination by: i) offering a framework and criteria to check eventual gaps in the existing scope of census and

encouraging the eventual additional use of household or population surveys to complement census where there is the need. Such could build on the WCA and Wye hand book on rural

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/am087e/am087e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/am087e/am087e.pdf

statistics which contains specific chapters on concept of agricultural households based on criteria related to labor input and income in agriculture vs off farm. Similarly, such framework could also promote the selection of agricultural households from household surveys to facilitate comparison with other analysis (for instance, Malawi case study was based on household survey only and the latter provided a broader view since it revealed an important share of declared full subsistence households which may not have been captured with alternative data sources);

ii) offering eventually a fourth category (in addition to family, patronal, corporate) for households not recognized as agricultural holdings or family farms in their countries but which can be important for food security. Or to make an effort to acknowledge their presence in the respective country context. For instance covering the smaller “semi-subsistence and subsistence” households whose main income is outside of agriculture, referred as “hobby” and patio farm in some countries. Such may be seen as a sub-category of family farm (FF) but is often excluded in some FF definitions.

The figure below attempts to summarize some of the key limitations around existing definitions and thresholds associated to census units of observation.

3.2.4 Methodological Approach, step by step overview of the development and assessment of types

The overview of case studies as well as the literature review on typologies worldwide reveals that the methodological approach to build typologies of agricultural holdings may be varied. However, under the WAW framework some basic steps may be outlined as follows:

Step 1: From criterion to indicators

First step is to convert the distinguishing criteria into indicators calculated based on the variables existing in the census or data source of choice. The selection of indicators very much depends on the nature of the dataset. This step is the one which inserts much of the variability across findings

since available indicators and resulting thresholds are context-specific although attempting to capture similar concepts such as family, patronal or corporate farm.

Step 2: Combining, cleaning, organizing the dataset

Some country partners combined various data sources (Vietnam). Combining census with household surveys is however not a straight forward procedure as adequate identification of units of observations must be ensured along with the tackling of representative samples. Such imposes further checking and to reflect on how the types are actually combined and not duplicated. Most of the literature review indicates that this practice is not widespread or recommended and requires verification. The merge is possible only if the ID of cases from both databases are identical, but even in this case, it is not recommended to merge census with survey, as the number of cases (farms) will strongly differ. It is more recommended to merge two surveys, where the number of farms and there ID are more or less identical.

E-discussion raised questions on how to deal with inconsistencies and incoherencies as a way to obtain a cleaned and reliable data base. As exposed in the WAW Consultancy report (2013) the methodological process notably includes:

o detection and elimination of missing values: eliminate an entire variable or case, or fill blank cells with assumed value as statistical software may discard any case with empty cell)

o detection of outliers, meaning observation that appear inconsistent with the remainder of the data set (Barnet & Lewis, 2000). One method for determining outliers refers to setting minimum and maximum values. By applying these limits, extreme or unreasonable outliers are prevented from entering the data set. Such method are including in typology method of Brazil and Argentina (maximum land size threshold for instance)

A number of data screening tasks may also be conducted to analyze distribution of data and to eventually transform it to facilitate further analysis (for instance Logarithmic transformation has the effect of stretching small values of X and condensing large values of X)

Step 3: Building the types and categories based on the proposed criteria

Different methods were used to build the types, either directly from pre-determined criteria and category (such as in the cases of Nicaragua, Madagascar, Brazil), or through statistical methods built on the proposed criteria to regroup most similar holdings according to pre-determined criteria (cluster analysis as in the case of Vietnam). France combined both approaches, starting with the overall category but adding a k-mean method to find a threshold of total waged labor / total labor to further distinguish patronal farms. Discussions were held on the relative merit of a deductive versus a statistical approach (see Box 4). o The Vietnam team explained the use of partitioning methods as a way to avoid subjective

categorization of variables particularly when samples are large (more than 12000 observations). Such statistical techniques minimize the variance of holdings belonging to the same group, meanwhile maximizing the variance across groups. However, they generate country specific categories which do not facilitate comparison at international level. Also, the differentiation across group is based on specific discrimination variable, whereas it may be

desirable to distinguish holdings according to other variable (for instance, in the case of France holdings with different share of hired labor were distinguished, but it does not mean that the resulting category are different in terms of income and other structural characteristics).

o On the other hand, deductive methods which propose a set of criteria and categories are usually based on field observation and/or expert knowledge which may bring a more empiric and holistic understanding of the different types of holdings. Pure statistical analysis based on limited data may bring some biased results and other colleagues advocated for strong use of such empirical and stakeholders’ knowledge

o Lastly, some countries combined indicators into a two stages process, whereas participants suggested that it would be useful to actually combine identification criteria in one step rather than in different steps, particularly when considering three distinguishing criteria.

Box 4: Deductive vs Statistical methods: results from literature review (WAW,2013) Independently of the kind of typology (official/academic/development project) and its specific focus, two main typology building methods are identified:

A “deductive “ or “qualitative” method that consists in defining holding types on the basis of expert knowledge and literature review and/or a specific policy objective/focus. In some cases, this method follows a top-down approach with holding types being defined a priori with or without a posteriori validation from data or field-based feedback. Types may be identified according to field consultation of technical experts, local authorities, stakeholder interviews, etc. The a priori qualitative classification can be validated, documented, detailed and/or sub-divided based on quantitative datasets.

A “data-based” or statistical method that consists in applying statistical tests to existing datasets in order to group individuals according to criteria (that can be pre-selected or identified through quantitative methods). The idea is to come to homogeneous groups with little intra-group variability while high inter-group variability is enforced. The main statistical tests quoted in the literature for typology building are the principal and multivariate analyses as well as the cluster analysis.

In practice, when typology building relates to a specific policy objective, the deductive analysis lead to a fast determination of relevant types according to a reduced number of characteristics (i.e. holdings with total land ownership / holdings with partly land ownership / holdings with no land ownership). But it is also particularly appropriate in situations in which no or only partial datasets are available (as is the case of the elaboration of the international typology). This approach is based on a deep qualitative understanding prevalent differentiation factors and their impacts on holdings’ trajectories (transformation processes). It is then knowledge-intensive. When quantification of types is pursued in order to estimate the relative share of each type or to define sub-types based on measurable indicators, strong investment in data collection (whether by institutions or researchers) are required along with strong skills in data management and data analysis. If the aim of the typology is to capture and document agricultural changes (dynamic analysis), the qualitative approach has to be associated with the enumeration of its resulting types and/or with the quantification of its main indicators in order to provide reference points for time-evolution analyses as well as to gain objectivity. The “data based” approach requires the existence of and access to reliable and comprehensive datasets. At the national level, this means the existence of a strong statistical system for agriculture and the conduction of census and large agricultural surveys (like FADN in Europe or the LSMS in developing countries, assuming these cover all farms and not only a sub-segment of smallholders as in the case of LSMS). In addition to the access of such related datasets, the statistical approach is demanding in the interpretation of ambiguous indicators and regarding effective data cleaning. In addition, strong skills in statistics and statistical software management are required, a particular capacity building challenge in many low income areas. In the case of the international typology, the qualitative approach appears to be the most suitable given

that no appropriate international agricultural database exists and given that the WAW Methodological Framework aims at documenting some pre-defined holdings’ features such as labor usage and at ultimately documenting food security status, territorial linkages, environmental impacts, etc... The enumeration/quantification stage should be based on few selected indicators taking into consideration that not all countries have extensive data collection systems. (WAW, 2013)

Step 4: assessing coherence of types

One common method was to use additional variables (related to the distinguishing criteria) to cross check pertinence of types and remove outliers and potentially wrong answers. For instance, Nicaragua team had to carry out several cross analysis of variables (for instance cross checking “way of working” with nature of respondent, type of management and external labor). In the same way, in addition to distinguishing criteria, Argentina and Brazil studies used additional criteria to remove outliers (for instance maximum economic or land size thresholds). The latter may also be complemented into a descriptive analysis of types.

Step 5: analyzing typology relevance

Different methods were used across the countries to analyze emerging types: - All countries used descriptive statistics to see the characteristics of types, their

distributions and check whether the types were indeed different or similar. Frequent descriptors were associated to the five capital asset framework or the diversified livelihood framework. In this respect, some countries also used additional statistical test: Nicaragua carried out an anova /Duncan test to analyze and compare heterogeneity within and across groups. Madagascar and France carried out multinomial logit regressions, with the categories as endogenous variables and other characterizations variables as exogenous so as to see key influencing factors.

- A number of countries carried out comparisons to further see the relevance of the typology: 1) compared the produced typology with existing typologies at country level (Vietnam, France, Madagascar); 2) compared results of typology with different data sets within similar geographical areas (ROR vs census in Madagascar, census vs agrarian studies and other data in Nicaragua)

- Finally, most countries involved stakeholders and experts to provide feedback on the results (Madagascar, Vietnam, France, Nicaragua)

4 WAW International typology purpose This section attempts to summarize E-discussion held on the capacity of the WAW framework and in particular the WAW international typology to inform policy discussions at both national and international level. Additional focus was placed on the capacity of the WAW international typology to 1) bring further understanding on family farm debate, helping to reconcile and see differences among key concepts such as subsistence household holding, peasants and small holder farms on one hand and further debating the nature of patronal and corporate farms on the other hand; 2) be helpful in documenting and understanding overall rural transformations and thinking about development pathways for different types; 3) provide ways to reflect on differentiated support, thus targeting the diversity of the emerging types of holdings while considering the perceptions of national stakeholders.

4.1 Supporting policy formulation: national vs international viewpoints Many discussions were held around the use and purpose of a WAW international typology, with an overall agreement that such kind of work shall be clearly anchored in informing policy in both national and international frameworks. There were numerous examples proving its usefulness particularly from past experiences having actually contributed strongly to formulation of national policy towards family farming in Brazil6 and Argentina. It was agreed in most E-discussion that such purpose implies first a country based work serving national policy dialogue before contributing to international debates:

At country level, one key purpose of WAW typology implementation can be to raise the profile of family farms for governments and to prepare better targeted interventions, based on higher quality documentation on holding importance and characteristics. The latter can also inform dialogue over the futures of agrarian structures and places of family farms, taking into account rural transformations trends and challenges which impact diversely family farms.

Such country based focus and purpose has implications on process and methods to develop such typology exercise to actually inform policy:

o One pre-condition appears the actual involvement and interest of policy makers and various stakeholders from the beginning (terms of reference, scope of work) and along the process, with for instance multi-stakeholders advisory committee.

o Importance to unfold family farms diversity along locally relevant sub-types so as to support better targeting and adaptation of various policy instruments.

o In the same line, need to provide detailed database on disaggregated types, which can then be analyzed and used in different ways (example provided in Argentina)

o Use of statistical data is essential to ensure legitimacy, representativeness and weight of the knowledge produced. Therefore, it is important to have operational criteria which can actually be applied to existing statistics.

o However statistics alone remain limited in scope and cannot easily for instance provide an understanding of the key factors explaining different outcomes along holdings and providing action point for policy. Therefore, such kind of assessment needs to be associated with both stakeholders’ knowledge and other kinds of field survey. The use of agrarian diagnosis and other field data collection were mentioned and recommended (Nicaragua, Brazil case studies), in complement to statistical analysis

Country based focus however triggered many discussions on the difficulties to articulate national findings into a global-level comparable framework. The diversity of country data and contexts has led to many obstacles to ensure quantitative comparison among types. However, the global level of the framework still triggered interest both for national partners and for international level, for instance:

o Country teams and partners expressed needs and interest to have technical support and capacity developed on building useful typology. Therefore, international guidelines are clearly of interest and could also be made available along global initiatives on improving related data and statistics

o Even if the emerging types are not exactly the same, comparison and exchanges remained interesting both for national and international partners, mainly in aspects concerning the comparison of national types to overall proposed types as a way to also

6 See in addition blog coordinated by Farm on the Brazilian experience http://www.fondation-

farm.org/zoe.php?s=blogfarm&w=wt&idt=1705

enrich global discussions on concepts of family farms etc.;, comparison of trends and correlation between variables (Nicaragua proposal, suggesting a framework connecting labor, specialization and income), comparison of empirical process and methods used etc.. These exchanges are also essential to facilitate sharing of expertise, facilitate capacity development across partners engaged in similar work and also to analyze the effects of policy implementation around particular types of holdings.

o Finally, such international framework and its illustrations around country based work can also be useful for global initiatives and process 1) it can contribute to raise global awareness and dialogue on issues of agrarian transformations and roles of family farms related issues through publications, events; 2) it can enable the development of recommendations for global processes around family farms (such as IYFF etc.) and existing initiatives around statistical coordination and collection (such as census, global strategy for improved statistics) to improve harmonization and quality of data.

4.2 Developing family farm-related concepts Many exchanges highlighted the need to use typology findings to bring more clarity to the concept of family farms, and to distinguish it from small farms and subsistence farms. Indeed, in many cases, family farms are mistakenly considered as small or even as subsistence farms, a tendency which worsens by the use of size criteria to define family farms. An example from Argentina highlighted that there was an assumption that small holder family farm would be more vulnerable. However, with the definition proposed, analysis showed that the types did not include only poor holdings. The work carried out in Argentina and Brazil contributed to showcase diversity within family farms. Breaking such unhelpful prejudice is already a great added value as such misconception may lead to the understanding that productivity and income increases can only be achieved by non-family farms. In the same line, regional dialogue on FF in Latin America shows that most stakeholders wish for a wider definition recognizing that FF can be wealthy as well, with good equipment and hiring of labor.

WAW framework proposes to separate family farms based on criteria mixing family labor use and type of management, as proposed by overall FAO definitions, with some similarities with the CIRAD proposed definition as well as with other work presented in Argentina and Brazil. The definition proposed by CIRAD appears however stricter than others and closer to smaller family farms (cases of Argentina and Brazil). WAW international consultants proposed further distinction according to type of market orientation which can be also useful to further demonstrate that subsistence or self-consumption oriented farms are not only family farms. Consequently, there is a need to clarify conceptually and empirically the different facets of family farms.

It is likely that the framework shall allow some flexibility for country relevant definitions of “family farms”, based on the combination of the variable proposed, the stakeholders view, the context and data available. Yet it is essential that a common understanding of keywords such as family, patronal and corporate farms is enhanced. In this respect, the notion of legal status or management style of the holding and the actual proportion of family to hired labor may be improved joint indicators on whether the household holding can be categorized as patronal or not. Similarly, since patronal farms are characterized by some higher proportion of hired labor in comparison to their family farm counterparts, their proportion of sales or market orientation may also be expected to be significant unless the holding is subsidized by an external activity. However, if the limits between family and patronal farm are blurred, it can be useful to further define what definitely not a family farm is and can be considered as a corporate farm instead. Nicaragua

presentations highlighted that the rationale of corporates/agricultural enterprises is different from the ones of individual families (either engaged as family or patronal farms).

o A professional team in charge of production tasks and the latter is not a family o Management logic based on maximization of returns on investments (profit rate) not

on generation of agricultural incomes Country case studies indicate that it is often not possible to capture the distinct functioning’s (profit vs income generation) based only on labor used or even varied indicators associated to legal status. There are a series of mixed cases where for instance patronal farms (owned by the family and providing family labor input yet hiring a manager) have non-family investors to report to, therefore being closer to a corporate rationale. Although the combination of labor usage with management and legal status increases the capacity of the framework to capture such functioning: notably the management criteria used in Argentina, Brazil and partially in Nicaragua (hired manager), the approach is not infallible and some case by case considerations may be required. Legal status can help indirectly to capture an investment based functioning when there is some corporate status obliging some asset reporting. However, it might also be required to understand the origin of capital and its implications on management particularly if the non-household holding has a non-profit orientation such as in the case of a religious or indigenous association. Consequently, expert knowledge is desirable to untangle specific cases. The variety of potential cases is substantial and this is not limited to the family or patronal farm category. Under the corporate category, the so-called “pool de siembra” in Argentina is another difficult to tackle case. Although the latter are actually registered in the Census as a pool of land owners and investors to exploit the land, their relatively short duration and existence of one or few more years under leasing contracts makes it difficult to fully assess their transformations as well as to separate them from other corporate farms unless a time dimension is included. 4.3 WAW typology as targeting mechanism As highlighted before, one of the main purposes of the typology work proposed by WAW is to inform policy and enable a better adaptation and targeting of programs according to different types of holdings, with a specific interest (from IFAD and FAO) to focus on the most vulnerable ones. Consequently, it was highlighted in the E-discussion that in order for the typology to be pertinent for policy implementation, further disaggregation of farm categories are needed; particularly for the family farm sub-types. The original WAW framework assumes that different types of holdings have different combinations of assets which impact the strategy they can undertake and their results in terms of production, employment, environment interactions etc… Therefore, it is essential that the disaggregated or detailed typology actually enables to capture significant different level of assets and vulnerability across types with limited heterogeneity within types. The latter can be achieved through two complementary steps:

i) a descriptive statistical analysis to check the correlation of the typology with key indicators of assets and poverty. Such was most often done, with different kinds of indicators: gross production (total, per worker, per land), poverty level (Vietnam, Madagascar, Malawi, ), economic size (comparison with economic size class in France), overall asset level (Malawi). Additionally, types can be further categorized according to their production system and agro-ecological settings.

ii) qualitative analysis to compare the emerging types with existing typology and consult stakeholders’ views. The latter was undertaken in most country case studies as a way to double check whether the emerging types had policy significance and were rightly adjusted to the national context.

4.3.1 Descriptive Analysis

Asset level and poverty Status Asset level and poverty status are commonly used for further description of types. The latter was undertaken in the typologies produced in Argentina and Brazil (Figures 7 and 8) but their usage was beyond that of description since it also contributed to the identification of subtypes. In these studies, the family farm type was further categorized by the estimate of production per worker (Brazil) and the estimate of capital level using regional averages based on the predominant productive activity (Argentina). Both frameworks were regionalized considering for instance different levels of waged work for the Brazilian study, different capital average calculation depending on the knowledge of production systems which included not only the type of production system but also the technology involved (i.e. the size of livestock, irrigated area, tractors etc.) in Argentina. In the case of Brazil, family farms where also described in terms of their income group level assessed against the regional opportunity cost of labor. The latter was also complemented by the direct measurement of income. Similarly, the area of holdings was compared to the maximum regional average as a way to also categorize family farms. The Argentina typology divided the family farm category into four sub-types according to asset levels (land size, tractors, crop portfolio etc.). As illustrated by the country reports, the selection of such additional criteria and indicators can either be done empirically, based on other relevant work, field studies and experts’ knowledge, or statistically, through regression analysis of the statistical data, to bring forward key variables impacting the characteristics of the farm. The WAW original framework supports both theoretical and empirical approaches in the description of types but also actively supports that key variables for this task are taken from the capital asset framework (which affects both household and non-household holdings) and the diversified livelihood framework (mainly applied to household holdings). In the Madagascar typology the assessment of emergent types on the basis of the capital asset framework proved to be rather significant, particularly when using survey household data (Figure 10). Interestingly, most of the differences are associated to natural, physical and social capital, while human and financial capital tends to be relatively low for all types of holdings.

Figure 10: Madagascar Typology: Descriptive analysis under the capital-asset framework

In Malawi, the descriptive analysis also reinforced the differences across identified types with holdings relying only on family labor being the less endowed, more engaged in informal low waged agricultural work, with less paid off farm opportunities, less land and agricultural revenues. However, the correlation between the rest of types (with mixed hired labor reported) and such characteristics did not appear so clear and appearing closer to one another (Table 4).

Table 4: Descriptive analysis: Malawi typology

Off-farm activities Some country case studies also introduced information on off farm activities to further analyze the nature of the holding in question. In many countries, farm holdings (and even sometimes family farms) need to derive more than 50% of their income from agriculture in order to be accounted and defined as agricultural holdings. In the same line, some countries may impose higher thresholds. For instance in Brazil family farms require a minimum share of income coming from agriculture of 80%. National typologies in Vietnam use a definition of professional farms as those fully devoted to agriculture in order to set them apart from agricultural households which may be somewhat more diversified with their time allocation. Similarly, the Wye hand book for rural statistics refers to a combination of on farm and off farm activities as means to define an

agricultural household. For instance, a household with little farm activities but also little or no other off farm income will still be qualified as an agricultural household. When describing types through off-farm engagement, the Madagascar and Malawi case studies introduced off-farm agricultural wages as a relevant indicator along with disaggregated information on the different types of income. Nicaragua also suggested analyzing holdings that sell their family labor on the rural agricultural labor market (as waged casual work). In the Vietnam typology overall indexes on share of agricultural income in household income were provided. For the case of France the analysis was taken at the level of agro-processing and direct sales as a way to assess whether farms were more or less specialized in their respective production system. Lastly, Vietnam, Madagascar and Brazil carried out some analysis regarding specialization of production activities, using different kinds of specialization index (Simpson index and % in one production in Brazil) as a way to rule out diversification strategies at the holding level. In most cases, we see some kind of correlation between increased use of hired labor or income and less diversified agricultural activities (Brazil, Vietnam), For the purpose of descriptive analysis the information on off farm income provided the following insights (see also Box 5):

o The incorporation of off farm appears important to better interpret the nature of subsistence or semi-subsistence farms. In Vietnam, off farm income was especially relevant for the semi-subsistence family farms purely relying on family labor since it provided a form of subsidy to agricultural activities. On the other hand, those hiring labor appeared more specialized in agriculture. m

o It seems important to take into account the type of off farm activity: whether it is casual unskilled work, permanent salaried work, own account activities based or not on agriculture etc. In Madagascar, we could see that different labor based category obtained some off farm income, but from different sources: waged labor mainly concerned the family farms without any hired labor. In the Malawi case study different types of off farm were also reported per type. The most informal and low waged off farm work (Ganyu) was mostly present in the pure family farm category.

Box 5: Diversification (in the form of other gainful activities & off-farm work): further insights Although, “other gainful activities*” is one of the three distinguishing criteria of the recent EU typology established in 2008 (European Commission 2008 and Kinsella 2009), it was not included in the set of the WAW International Typology distinguishing criteria. By introducing this component, the European Commission recognized the growing importance of non-agricultural activities in farmers’ income. However, this criterion was finally discarded under the WAW international typology due to the difficulties to capture it in agricultural census and due to the initial focus of WAW international typology on the agricultural holding.

In all countries, a significant part of agricultural holders are considered multi-active agents that may be involved in non- or off-farm activities. This particularly fits to typologies focusing on the household level rather than the holding level where these different income sources are not always necessarily captured in agricultural datasets. Therefore, although the “off-farm activity” is a good complement to understand the role of agricultural activities in a given household, it may not make much sense for holdings belonging to corporate or entrepreneurial agriculture. At the same time, on a more practical ground, it should be highlighted that data on incomes are rarely detailed in national agricultural censuses and national surveys related with agriculture and even when obtained it could hardly be used to classify holdings at the

international level.

However, increasing blur between agricultural holding from the household sector and agricultural households, also due to the frequent need to complement census data with household data, leads us to reexamine the arguments which could have led to pick such criterion:

- “Off-farm activities” is usually considered in household typologies and it serves to analyze how the particular household is subject to changes in their institutional environment; particularly transformation in the rural economy. For Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis (2005) diversification of rural economy is such a strong factor of differentiation in Vietnam that it justifies using the share of agricultural income as the first distinguishing criterion (> or < 50%).

- The off-farm activities component attempts to capture two very divergent kinds of agricultural strategies occurring in high, low- and middle-income countries: on the one hand off-farm activities undertaken by low asset endowed households are expected to compensate their asset constraints and improve their living; on the other hand, stable and high return off-farm activities are undertaken by better-off farmers and may serve to subsidize farming endeavours. In that sense, Rigg (2005) clearly differentiate post-peasants’ pluri-activity and neo-peasants’ pluriactivity in South-East Asia. The former is attributed to off-farm activities as a complement to subsistence farming, often associated with migration, and the later one to off-farm activities as a lifestyle choice of part-time farmers. This duality is again stressed by Goto (2006) in Indonesia, under the distinction between “small multiple job holders” and “part-time farming households with a steady non-farm income”. Also in the European case, Fabiani and Scarano proposed in 1995 a socio-economic stratification of agricultural holdings that even if based on structural data from census was interpreted within the “household-farm” framework. Then, they came to a classification in eight types among which “De-activate accessory farms”, “Pluri-active accessory farms” and “Pluri-active professional farms” were found. Lastly in USA, the “neo-peasant pluri-activity” is also caught in the Single and Double Income Ruralpolitan types as well as in the “Farm operator with spouse working off-farm” type (Blank, 2005).

- Therefore, the off farm activity criterion could be “relevant in the case of further differentiating agricultural household holdings, possibly using off-farm activities as a supplement source of income for low asset-endowed households, or as stable and high return activities for better-off ones. Still, this criterion would have to be coupled to other traits in order to identify alternative paths of diversification

* Other gainful activities (OGA) of the farm comprise all activities other than farm work, directly related to the farm and having economic impact on the holding. The share of OGA directly related to the farm in the final output of the holding is estimated as the share of OGA directly related to the holding turnover in the total turnover of the holding (European Commission, 2008).

Production Systems,Agro-Ecological Zones & Territories Another way to enhance the description of types of holdings is based on the disaggregation according to production system and / or agro-ecological zone. On one hand, production systems are often correlated with specific production characteristics. Further analysis from Nicaragua study showed that the incorporation of production systems into the analysis of types improved the significance of the labor-based category, with less heterogeneity within each resulting category. This is mainly due to the fact that there are correlations between labor usage and production systems when it comes to peaks of production and labor requirements (See Box 6).

Box 6: Production systems and characteristics of farms in Nicaragua The Nicaragua study highlighted that it was not possible to analyze labor-based category without considering different production systems. For instance, in a same category such as corporate business, grain producers own an average of 79.7 ha, while cattle producers own 974.5 (which are 12 times larger). In the case of labor, coffee producers demand an average of 212 temporary workers, while grains producers demand only eight. A similar trend is found in the Patronal farms since grain producers own 35.1 ha, while cattle producers own 112 ha. Consequently, a production system analysis was carried out. The tables below present the validation of sub-types under coffee production system. They obtain family, patronal and corporate farms under coffee production.

The description of types according to production systems is also closely related to the analysis of types based on their agro-ecological setting or their immediate territory. Some country case studies thus undertook different analyses trying to examine differences among regions. Such provided interesting results and showed different weight of family farming and their characterizations across regions, in conjunction with production system and value chain available, market, agro-ecology etc. Building on Argentina work, INTA produced an atlas of farm types

(Figure 11). Indeed, at national level, it is important to understand the different characteristics and dynamics of different zones so as to reflect on the needed adaptation and relevance of national policies to different contexts and the way particular farm types adapt to such contexts. Figure 11: INTA Atlas of family farmers

Also, analysis within types can be more accurate and have more meaning within more homogeneous contexts, allowing in addition the use of complementary data available only at such

scale (such as ROR in Madagascar, agrarian diagnosis made in Nicaragua and Argentina) and better confrontation with field realities along with stakeholders’ views. Also, in line with the previous discussion, it may also allow comparison within relatively similar contexts and production systems in terms of labor availability. Finally, the approach used by Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina to build sub-types were actually adapted to each region specific context, as the range of production system and their significance may be different, as well as assets variables or the opportunity cost of labor which helped build the types in Brazil. Decentralized policies are best served by such decentralized assessments. The WAW framework indeed originally proposes to also provide some analysis of territorial assets and contexts, which could well connect to the descriptive efforts documented above. Some general aspects to consider in such analysis relate to the intangible aspects associated to territories such as institutional frameworks and their transformations. For instance, efforts to reduce disadvantages of remote territories can affect the functioning of holdings. In Canada and US, milk cooperatives offer the same transport cost services for holdings, whatever their distance to the collecting factory ). Implementing such “mean value” is partly compensated by policy (Dedieu & Courleux, 2009). This reduces the impact of the distance on the “competiveness” of the farm. Another point to consider is that an agro-ecological territory may be very heterogeneous in its market infrastructure, with local food systems offering opportunities for small production units even in areas with relatively reduced opportunities. Lastly, labor may have some mobility, with often internal migration being undertaken by holding to other territories. The latter can have consequences to the way holdings are operated in given territories and calls for territorial approaches that integrate institutional aspects as well as agro-ecological ones. According to Berdegue and Fuentealba (2011) policies ought to focus not only on developing the assets and capabilities of farmers, farm households, farms, and farmers' organizations, but on the territorial contexts in which they operate. To clarify this statement, the point was raised that assets are still relevant, especially as a strategy for poverty alleviation, but that the focus of policy on the “proximate context” can bring better results in terms of rural development. However, further understanding is required on what kind of context different farmers need and the type of policies which can promote the right environment for the heterogeneity of farmers. In this respect an interesting classification of family farmers was set up (ibid):

o Asset-poor smallholders in territorial and regional contexts that are not conducive to economic growth and social development. o Smallholder agriculture with some limitations of assets in territorial and regional contexts where there is a measure of economic growth and social development. o Asset-rich smallholders in territorial and regional contexts that are very conducive to economic growth and social development.

This classification mainly highlights that there is an important widening gap between farming opportunities in dynamic regions and more stagnant or lagging regions. This has created a more diverse and polarized set of farming situations which needs to be considered when targeting agricultural investments. This is also especially important when the objective is to help vulnerable farms become successful and profitable farm businesses

4.3.2 Confronting typology to existing national typologies and stakeholders view Most country case studies conducted literature reviews on other existing national typologies and organized working groups with key stakeholders in order to analyze the relevance of their typology

http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/CEP_Analyse_11_anglais.pdf

work. In the case of Madagascar, involvement of stakeholders was crucial and constructive to improve the quality of the work and better respond to stakeholders needs. Some of the recommendations included: 1) recoup census and ROR data in specific territories and validate the typology locally; 2) incorporate other agricultural sectors into the analysis (fishery, forestry) considering the very different variables used to appreciate their size 3) undertake socio-economic assessment, incorporate indicators of diversification (crop diversity, mixed crop/livestock etc.), environmental indicators 4) distinguish holdings which do not use any kind of non-family labor, even in terms of « free exchange » ; 5) address the issue of land access and tenure security. In Vietnam, different workshops were organized to obtain views from national and local actors. Discussions turned notably around the correspondence of international farm concepts versus those typically used in Vietnam such as:

- Certificated farms - Household farm (“gia trai”) - Household

Although the three concepts are closely related to size of production with household being the smallest and certified farms presenting the largest scale, it was not evident that they could directly fit into the family, patronal and corporate nomenclature of the WAW international framework. Local staff also suggested production systems to distinguish between household holdings. The latter was justified on the basis that many policy interventions are sectoral or include sectoral component so it is often useful to propose thematic assessment within specific production systems. Interestingly, rural households in Vietnam are classified in 3 groups: only agriculture activity household, only non-agriculture activity household, and mixed household (both agriculture and non-agriculture). For households having agriculture activities, they can classify as livestock household, aquaculture household, cow raising household, etc. This classification is also new to the WAW approach which was mainly concentrated on agricultural holdings. In summary, local stakeholders in Vietnam suggested farm size and production systems of holdings to classify emerging types. Similarly it was suggested to measure the experience of holdings, for example though number of year the head of agriculture holding work as agriculture producer. It was suggested to include the extent of mechanization which has increased in past years replacing labor usage to great extent. In the case of France, the construction of the typology was discussed with stakeholders and resource persons of the Region Languedoc Roussillon (South of France) engaged in a large variety of productions: perennial crops (wine, fruits), livestock and dairy and crop-livestock farming systems. They were selected because of their expert knowledge on (i) production dynamics; (ii) holding dynamics and (iii) the labor situation and evolution at holding and global level in the region. The experts implicitly validated the typology based on labor by distinguishing « family based holding” relying on family labor from “capitalist” holdings. They also distinguished among family based holdings those that could transform and that now rely on permanent hired labor working together with the family members. Their size appears to be generally larger than for regular family farms. Another interesting component raised by stakeholders and field experts is that family farms seem to be closely linked to pluriactivity at household level. On the other hand, experts draw attention on the fact that in “capitalist” holdings’ means of production belong to investors that rely on hired labor including that of managers (often called “contremaître”).

4.4 Relevance of WAW typology in capturing rural transformations Rural transformations are taking place at various levels: global, national, sectoral and at the micro level. At global level the change in demographic patterns have led to an increased urbanization partly related to the emigration from rural areas to cities. At national level, countries have experienced transformations of their rural economies and societies at different speeds and have been subject to food crises. At sectoral level, the agriculture sector has been transformed with higher pressure on natural resources and at micro-level the agricultural holding has also had to change its livelihood strategies in order to cope with the changing socio-economic and institutional environment. In this section, it is argued that the WAW international typology and overall methodological framework are suitable mechanisms to capture the transformations at the micro-level, that is the transformations of agricultural holdings. The section is organized as follows: Sub-section 4.4.1 introduces an overview of on-going rural transformations. Sub-section 4.4.2 introduces the WAW international typology as a suitable mechanism for monitoring transformations at the agricultural holding level. Sub-section 4.3 extends the analysis to examine how the descriptive analysis of types can also further inform the understanding on rural transformations and improve policy making and targeting.

4.4.1 Overview on rural transformations Most existing literature around rural transformations at the holding level refer to criteria associated to assets (increased size of holding, increased mechanization and input used), production orientation (specialization, commercialization), labor productivity (increasingly replaced by mechanization) and type and degree of off and on farm work, as a mean to grasp the on-going transformations. There are also classical trends of transformations present in the literature. For instance, it is argued that at macro level a reduction of the number of holdings, an average growth in size of holdings and the assets that they use, with often increased mechanization, intensification and specialization of agricultural systems may be expected. The key of such transformations most often turn around increased labor productivity: “The basic cause and effect of the structural transformation is rising productivity of agricultural labor” (Timmer, 2009.) with three major paths: 1) technical change to increase labor productivity (such as mechanization, input), transfer of agricultural labor (for instance reducing the surplus of family labor in some family farms in context of low job opportunity) and increased price (Bosc et al, 2012). These trends lead to a reduced share of agricultural labor at country level which “release” agricultural labor. Such sectoral transformations have usually been co-evolving with trends of overall economic diversification outside of agriculture (manufacture, industry, service etc.), increased urbanization (with changed rural and urban density, labor availability etc.) and increased integration of agriculture in national and global markets, for sales of products but also for use of inputs, waged labor and services (Berdegue and Fuentealba, 2011). However, it is not straightforward to provide employment and income diversification opportunities to “released agricultural labor” without adequate training and job opportunities. As

a result, poor and unstable urban slums, insufficient poverty reduction efforts and rising inequality have been frequent results. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, transformations of agriculture sector are coupled with demographic transitions with cohort of youth joining the labor market. “While a larger labor force offers countries new opportunities for growth related to the “demographic dividend,” it also could pose socio-political risks if investments and public policies are inappropriate to support the processes underway”(Freguin-Gresh et al, 2012). In addition, international migrations and related job opportunities are much restrained than in the 19th and 20th century. Degradations and increased scarcity of natural resources shed much more light on the need for sustainable intensification. Increased fuel prices and increased concerns on the consequences of gas emissions in part connected to use of such fossil energy question also the type of intensification to be achieved while the on-going globalization process with value chains scattered across the world threatens the viability of smaller food production systems. It is worth noting that despite the decline of agricultural contribution to employment and growth, there is a diversity of patterns of agricultural transformations and government interventions (Figure 12). For instance, India and China have introduced a combination of policy tools to slow down the decline of agricultural sector employment through a stronger focus of agricultural policy around smallholder farming (Figure 13). The latter is also associated to the need to sustain rural populations. Also, patterns can shift in time, with sometimes observed reverse trends towards agriculture in case of economic crisis. “During economic recession, as currently observed in the Southern EU MSs and some NMSs, labor is “pushed” back to agriculture, and farming serves as a buffer against urban unemployment (Davidova et al., 2013).” Such reverse trend is also very much highlighted for part of Asia and Africa: “Although there is a lot of country and regional variation, the overwhelming story across much of Africa and Asia is one of more small farms, shrinking farm sizes and increased income diversification (Lipton, 2006). Despite growth, sometimes quite rapid growth, in national per capita incomes, there is little sign yet of a shift to the patterns of farm consolidation and matching levels of rural-urban migration that occurred during the economic transformation of today’s industrialized countries. Ultimately, the diversity of transformation patterns offers room to imagine different scenarios of transformations according to national and international context and challenges, with a strong role for policy. Such triggers the need to further document such transformations, from both national aggregated level but also along different transformations of holdings.

Figure 12: Agricultural Trajectories per world region

Dorin et al. 2013 Figure 13: Agricultural transformation at national level

Some economists predict agricultural transformations that will lead to the “disappearance of family farms” with a dual trend. On one hand, growth patterns are undertaken by some holdings, usually the most capitalized managing to achieve the necessary investments and increasing their size, increasingly using hired labor to complement family labor. Such growth can also lead to more corporate / enterprise holdings, with integration of capital from other actors such as investment firms, agro-industries etc. Similarly, investors may start creating large scale structures, relying on existing family farms for their labor supply (i.e. wave of large scale investments) (Saravia-Matus et al, 2013). On the other hand, as the resource base is limited growth patterns are inter-connected and build on the de-capitalization and disappearance trends of other players. In other words, the growth of the first is much based on the “absorption of land and non-land agricultural assets of the other family farms exiting due to financial difficulties or the lack of a successor (Figure 14). Figure 14: Overview of agricultural transformations at farm level

However, more complex patterns are evident and the so-called disappearance of small, less endowed family farms has not been fully seen, even in developed countries. Indeed, in Northern America and in Europe, over 60% and 90% of farms are less than 20ha(HLPE, 2013). Patterns have been identified, either linked to a maintained / increased engagement around agriculture or different types of disengagement (Hawkins, et al, 1993) (sometimes keeping the strong role of farm household plots for food security).

Davidova (2013) identified two additional transformation paths at holding level:

“Transformation of semi-subsistence farms into commercial ones via greater market integration, a process usually supported by agricultural and rural development policy measures. “

“Continuation of the status quo concerning agricultural activities even in the small-scale family farms and SSFs through (a) diversification with on- or off-farm enterprises; (b) non-agricultural wage employment and part-time farming; or (c) “forced” re-entry of successive family generations due to the lack of alternative income sources under the conditions of underdeveloped rural economy.”

Such patterns can be related to the national context but also to the diversity of strategies at the holding and household level (Figure 15). Different ways may be pursued in order to increase production and integrate to markets. Small and medium farms may achieve economies of scale through vertical and horizontal organizations (farm and value chain cooperative, cooperatives sharing equipment) as well as through externalization of some of its activities (mechanized services etc..) which enable them to acquire the needed technology without having to do the very costly related investment. Emerging constraints in terms of energy, environmental sustainability and society expectations provides opportunity for agro-ecological intensification which can be more labor intensive and can provide competitive advantage to smaller structures which can adapt techniques to the diversity of agro-ecological conditions and local markets, providing as well room for local rural development. Also, larger scale models and other investors can build on existing family farms instead of absorbing and replacing them, supporting / contracting them to produce some of their production(such as contract farming, aggregated models etc. that build on socio responsibility standards). Such trends often favor the medium family farms but necessarily the smaller semi-subsistence farms. Figure 15: Overview of agricultural transformations at farm level

We may find also a variety of strategies to add value to the production, enabling some holdings to maintain a sufficient income from their agricultural holding with more limited or no significant increase in the agricultural production or the size of the holding. Some diversify within the value chain, with local based approach generating employment locally around value addition (differentiation along quality products etc.), on farm transformations, direct marketing, on farm tourism etc. Diversified production systems can enable them to make economy of scope (different from economies of scale) across agricultural activities, keep sufficient income and manage risks (Freguin-Gresh et al, 2012) In conjunction with the “continuation” trend and the apparent “disappearance” trend, we can identify subsistence and semi-subsistence farms, which diversify their sources of income and may be progressively exiting and de-capitalizing but most often keep still part of their land for own food security, risk management and income generation with a strong role of own food consumption. External income can be invested back to support agricultural production, or alternatively agricultural income serves to secure and support other business forms, increasing actually their resilience (Davidova et al, 2013). Such is usually associated with part-time farming, which is becoming more and more typical in developed countries (sometimes referred as hobby / pension / semi-subsistence farms) and is very present in developing countries (Bruno et al, 2011). According to particular situations of family labor availability and off farm opportunities, farmers may wish to expand their other sources of income or focus their efforts on their farms rather than selling their labor force. Such analysis confirms the importance of the labor criteria and the orientation of production, but also brings into light the interest to approach the importance and level of off farm, the different levels of asset and the degree of intensification (including level of inputs etc.).

4.4.2 WAW typology, a monitoring mechanism of rural transformations at holding level Since the WAW international typology is based on three distinguishing criteria these become the starting point for monitoring transformations at holding level. Each of the three criteria (labor usage, legal status and output orientation) is discussed independently before moving on to analyze the potential of type descriptive analysis in the monitoring of transformation at the holding level. The decisions around management style and labor usage at farm level have relevant implications for understanding and capturing rural transformations at both holding and sectoral levels. At sectoral level, the monitoring of changes in the proportion of family, patronal and corporate farms present in the agricultural sector would be useful to understand how the nature of management has been altered and to answer whether the proportion of family farms have increased or decreased. Similarly, if labor contracted in the agricultural sector is released as addressed by some of the transformation trends discussed above, the policy focus may be shifted towards the creation of income opportunities either through boosting the agricultural or non-agricultural activities in the rural areas. At the same time, by identifying family farms, that is, those purely relying on family labor and analyzing their performance and poverty level it is possible to better target interventions to such sub-sector, whose importance has been recognized at the highest level (International Year of Family farming, COAG 2015). Such requires however to take into account their diversity, paying attention to the most socially vulnerable.

By focusing on the legal status or nature of management at the holding level it is also possible to monitor whether new types of investors are entering the agricultural sector. Recently, large-scale land transactions have taken place in the rural areas of developing countries (Saravia-Matus et al, 2013) and the nature of new players has been varied from financial institutions to biofuel processing companies or sovereign funds management agencies. The latter implies a transformation which has increased the number of non-household holdings, at times in detriment of the household holding sector. Without a distinction on the nature of management and type of labor, as supported by the WAW typology, keeping track of these investments and consequent transformations is troublesome to say the least. The criterion associated to output orientation, that is aimed at commercialization or self-consumption is intimately related to trends related to the rural transformation agenda as portrayed by Davidova (2012). In other words, it allows capturing whether farmers are becoming more or less engaged with market interactions and the consequences this entails for socio-economic development. Similarly, farm-households mainly focused on self-consumption and reporting poor asset endowments can be once again targeted as those most vulnerable in the agricultural spectrum of holdings. In all the country typologies included in this synthesis report, holdings with vulnerable status have been adequately identified. In the cases of Madagascar, Malawi, Vietnam, Brazil and Argentina, the holding relying mainly on family labor, managed by the family owner and with limited market interactions has been associated to poor asset endowments. If the country typologies could be consecutively re-built for forthcoming waves of census (or survey) data it would be possible to assess how these particular types have evolved in their respective contexts. Have they exited the sector? Have they managed to subsist? Have their asset endowments changed? Have they encountered alternative income sources? As evidenced above, the identification of types on the basis of the three distinguishing criteria needs to be complemented by effective descriptive analysis in terms of capital-asset endowments on one hand and livelihood diversification on the other. It is the joint information of these two aspects that allows not only for effective monitoring of transformations but for this monitoring to adequately inform policy targeting, particularly among the most vulnerable. In this respect, the Nicaragua team illustrated the connection between the proposed typology and rural transformations, by jointly analyzing trends in labor change, income increase, diversification or specialization in and off agriculture. They notably highlight four major stages in the transformation process (Figure 16):

Low income farms may often be focused on subsistence, engaged in rural labor markets, and carrying out medium off-farm diversification

As families get more room for maneuver (capitals), they start to diversify their on-farm production, include more family workforce and may hire external workforce (use of temporary labor)

Families reach a tipping point (enough capitals manageable at family level) and often require more labor, including permanent hired labor, entering into the “patronal” farm category. Farms specialized in agricultural production (yet still with diversified crop portfolios) for markets (either domestic or export).

Families become highly specialized in high-value products, in particular for exports, and start diversifying in off-farm/high returns activities (services, agro-processing

Figure 16: Stages in the agricultural transformation process at holding level (Adapted from Rural struc, Nicaragua report)

Such framework was not tested as such along the case studies but most country typologies included a description on the nature of on and off farm specialization/diversification at holding level. Table 5 summarizes key findings. Table 5: Connections between on and off farm specialization/diversification and WAW typology distinguishing criteria per country case study.

Vietnam Results showed a direct connection between increased uses of hired labor and increased commercialization and specialization of agricultural activities. Yet at the lowest income levels increased commercialization was related to diversified agricultural portfolios.

Nicaragua Family farms have more diverse productive orientation while corporate farms appear to be specialized

Madagascar Based on ROR data, pure family farms are more diversified than holdings using any kind of hired labor: The difference between those using temporary labor and permanent labor is less visible With ROR data, it can be observed that family farms are much more involved in casual agricultural wages than categories using permanent hired labor. Such category may be involved in more skilled jobs

Brazil Specialization / diversification in one or more products is quite discriminatory along types, with trends of specialization among more wealthy types. In any case, specialization follows a

regional rationale with the largest specialization occurring in the south, along tobacco producers, soybean and corn, in conjunction with related value chain / agribusiness in the area. Diversification off farm could not be calculated as it was not in the census.

Argentina Off farm activities were mainly captured in type A which refers to the smaller holdings and the most vulnerable ones.

There is convergence along the reports on the correlation between diversified off-farm livelihood strategies among the least endowed family farms. There is however, an issue of comparability and data constraints in capturing both on-farm and off-farm specialization/diversification. In some cases specialization is captured using index (such as Simpson index) or on the basis of reported activities. When the reported activities are translated into monetary terms (i.e. the only way to aggregate production) the comparability is further restrained by different measurement approaches to farm net income. Ultimately, the main limitation is the data. Off-farm activities are not usually captured in census as the unit of observation is an agricultural holding and not the rural household; thus non-agricultural activities are not thoroughly reported.

5 WAW Recommendations and proposed way forward This section summarizes the lessons and pending issues which emerged from the typology implantation processes at country level. It also identifies the tasks which need to be addressed from the WAW platform in order to address such pending questions and to support future typology development initiatives both at national and international level. Subsection 5.1 introduces an overview of recommendations per distinguishing criteria along with an assessment of approaches to descriptive analysis of types. This is useful to expose an improved version of the WAW international typology framework. Subsection 5.2 discusses the different roles WAW must assume in order to better support countries in their analysis and policy dialogue around agricultural holdings and rural transformations. This entails an examination of the type of methodological support WAW may provide, possibly in the form of a toolkit (technical support) and in terms of institutional initiatives WAW may lead in order to support census and data collection efforts that are harmonized at international level on one hand and relevant policy discussion at international arenas on the other.

5.1 Main lessons and pending issues

Table 6 summarizes some of the key issues which emerged around the application of the distinguishing criteria and selected criteria for effective description of emerging types. Table 6: Issues around distinguishing criteria application and descriptive analysis variables

Distinguishing Criterion

Labor Usage The application of the “ labor usage” criterion as a mean to distinguish between family, patronal and corporate types proved rather useful yet extremely country-specific in the introduction of indicators and thresholds.

The latter was mainly driven by data constraints but also due to context relevant particularities. For instance, few country typologies referred to the strict threshold established under the CIRAD proposal of “at least one permanent hired worker” to distinguish patronal from family farms. Instead it was more frequent to find the relative presence of family to hired labor (below or over 50% of total labor used) as a frequent approach to establish a difference between patronal and family farms. Another key issue which emerged referred to the possibility of forming more detailed types around family farming with the usage of hired labor; that is: pure family farms, family farms with temporary labor, family with temporary and permanent hired labor which represent less than 50% of total labor. Interestingly, in some cases family farms fully relying on hired labor were identified and not catalogued as patronal farms such as in the cases where the family farm owner is incapacitated to work the land and has no relatives. Other exceptions emerged when deeply assessing the potential of distinction of the labor usage criterion such as the cases where no labor is imputed (i.e. abandoned farms) or when there is high mechanization. The pending question for next steps is whether a rather wide definition of family farm is kept and these ramifications around different mixes of hired versus family labor are left for country level sub-analysis or whether they are taken for international comparison and consideration. In the latter case, further analysis is required to discuss on thresholds and select which of the varied types is worthwhile to be highlighted. If on the other hand, a broad definition of family farm is left for international discussion it should be decided whether this one is based on a flexible threshold such as the relative presence of family to hired labor (over 50% of total labor force) or whether the strict CIRAD threshold of at least one permanent hired labor is sustained. It should also be highlighted that the terms “permanent” and “ temporary” were also country specific and not directly comparable from country to country. Thus a conversion might be first necessary before discussing specific thresholds. One idea evolved around the concept of annual working unit (France) as a way to increase comparability but there is need to effectively aggregate time worked under each labor category and the latter may not be easily available in all countries. Another complication related to the usage of this criterion, particularly in the non-household sector refers to the occasional presence of family labor under this category which is meant to be 100% hired labor. The latter refers to particular types of non-household holdings such as associations or cooperatives which may rely on family workers but since these are compensated as if they were external hired workers it was agreed that the “corporate” nature of the holding was maintained. As a way to reinforce this category, some country case studies also introduced particular descriptive variables associated to the holder’s main occupation and time spent in the holding. If the time occupation was

agriculture and this was a full time commitment, the holding is more likely to be categorized as a family and not a patronal farm. It seems important to integrate a diversity of type of hired labor used, including contact services, sharecropping. Also, the issue of diversification came up strongly, but could also be approached through labor allocation (part-time farming).

Management style and Legal Status

One of the main purposes of this criterion is to reinforce the findings under the labor usage category. In other words, the legal status and management style indicators (which are extremely varied across countries) need to be carefully re-adapted so that they inform on whether the holding is a household or a non-household managed holding. In some cases, the legal status cannot help infer these aspects as it refers to other concepts such as “traditional or modern” (Madagascar case). In such situation it is relevant to go back to the initial data source and verify whether household and non-household holdings were surveyed or not. Similarly, the variety of legal statuses needs to be accurately interpreted and not misguided by national nomenclature. For instance, in the case of France, only family farmers can opt to the particular status of agricultural company, therefore this refers mainly to non-household holdings even if the term “company” is included. Concerning “corporate” or non-household holdings, another way to check whether they belong to this category is to reflect on the nature of management whether it is profit or income-based. Similarly, the presence of non-family investment may be another feature but it is not necessarily strict as there may be patronal farms with non-family investors. Similarly, hired management can be an interesting additional variable to distinguish corporate and patronal farms from family farms. Multiple household management holdings such as cooperative raised questions in some country typology reports. It was argued that they could be considered separately; in cases the cooperative had an income instead of profit oriented purpose and was mainly family-based. Yet, this horizontal coordination of various household holdings was also considered a sign of business strategy which allowed consolidating assets which ultimately has implications on the management and it is actually less connected to family-level decisions making. Such multi-household management is likely to have a corporate adapted status to facilitate share of income according to participation to capital and labor. It is yet to be decided whether they could become a separate sub-type among the non-household holdings. Further assessments are needed around the corporate category, which was very little assessed in the country reports as these holdings were not sufficiently present in census and surveys. Such may require additional survey tools and further reflections on criteria needed to highlight different categories.

Production The level of commercialization and production orientation may have to be

orientation (i.e. commercialization vs self-consumption)

interpreted very flexibly by country, according to existing data and the extent to which self-consumption or marketing strategies are applied in the given context. In Madagascar and Malawi, it seems that the share of sales does not necessarily reflect the level of surplus as one may assume. The absence of sales may actually be a criterion to discriminate holdings with other important off farm activities and whose income comes from alternative livelihoods. At the same time, the most vulnerable holdings may be in a poverty trap thus obliged to sell at harvest to settle debts and to buy during the lean season as they actually did not have surplus or it was insufficient. Therefore, they may have apparently “commercial orientation” but actually be net buyers of food. It was therefore argued that it appears interesting to build more complex indicators or to cross check such commercialization criterion with other variables. An interesting option may be more related to the presence of cash crop, which is usually undertaken by better endowed households and clearly commercially oriented. Also, it could be interesting to include the level of food produced per person regarding the main staple food consumed in the countries (such as maize for Malawi, rice for Madagascar, or a combination of key staples as appropriate). Such may enable to verify that the “commercial holdings” are actually commercially oriented, with a net surplus and not forced into stress selling at harvest time. Ultimately it was implied that further examination of the purpose of production could be linked to the type of production system in place, but this had different implication for international comparability, particularly if production systems were too detailed. It was also stated that in most cases it was pertinent to distinguish among holdings with little or no market integration those with stable and important off farm activities. In the case of Malawi this category of holdings were surprisingly better off. One assumption is that off-farm activities subsidized farming activities for self-consumption purposes. Similarly, it was relevant to identify farmers with reduced off-farm opportunities yet engaged in low paid agricultural waged work (Nicaragua). Of course, one of the main limitations to such an approach is the availability of such off-farm data which is not frequently captured under censuses which refer to agricultural holdings and not necessarily rural households with mixed agricultural and non-agricultural activities.

Descriptive Analysis Variable

Diversification/ Specialization (both on and off farm)

It was argued in most case studies that there is a need to work on a potentially comparable characterizing indicator on diversification and specialization at agricultural holding level. The latter could better complement the criterion on production orientation since it is usually assumed that specialized agricultural holdings tend to be oriented towards the market. Yet this is a working hypothesis since according to the World Bank (2007) also the least endowed tend to cultivate fewer crops. At the same time, it is argued that a diversification at holding level is a necessary pre-step towards higher commercialization (2007). Ultimately, this variable

could help inform on-going theoretical and empirical studies on the relationship between marketing and crop portfolio strategies. Also, further reflections may be needed on the variable pertaining to off farm, as a form of diversification outside agriculture. The latter puts pressure on including household holdings into the typology even if they are not mainly focused on agricultural activities.

Assets/Capitals and income (Poverty, Food Security)

Based on data availability, the WAW framework has proposed since its inception a description of types on the basis of the main five capitals/assets (physical, natural, financial, social and human) along with an analysis of the diversified livelihood or income strategies. As argued by country reports this could also be enriched by information in terms of food security and poverty status. It is possible however, that the great demand on data would produce descriptions of types which are highly variable, yet it would provide at country level a valuable overview of holdings in terms of socio-economic vulnerability.

The previous analysis confirms the relevance of each variable, but the need to further fine tune types across distinguishing criteria and descriptive analysis variables. As highlighted in Figure 17 questions remain on the different sub-categories which could be built, particularly around different decisions/forms of labor usage, the extent to which diversification on and off-farm could be integrated into the typology development and on the reinforcement of legal status for household versus non-household holding identification. Another pending question relates to the threshold on the production orientation criterion.

Figure 17 Overview of pending questions around thresholds of distinguishing criteria/indicators and additional descriptive variables

It is expected that answers to the questions and general guidance on the issues raised shall be resolved through the exchange among WAW partners and the experience gained throughout the implementation processes of the different country typologies. As evidenced, one major aspect of discussion relates to the way in which distinguishing criteria and descriptive analysis variables can be adapted and combined in order to produce relevant categories for both international and national policy dialogue. Different tools and approaches could be proposed, building and highlighting each country experience. For instance, some countries decided to approximate types of different assets with the sole use of the labor usage criteria (as done Madagascar) or by combining with other asset proxy (Argentina, Brazil). Building categories regarding orientation of production requiring extensive country knowledge will depend on the type of data available and expertise. The use of a more bottom up process involving field work or conducting further typology assessment could also be organized, as proposed in the case of Brazil. Ultimately, holding categorization may emerge as guided by expert knowledge (such as the production system approach introduced by Nicaragua) or based on statistical assessment (i.e. cluster analysis as done by Vietnam). Another alternative evolves from the direct combination of distinguishing criteria and subsequent merging of types according to selected traits (Malawi and France method). Notably, it appears essential to promote strong stakeholders involvement and associate the statistical work

to enhanced field assessment. Stakeholder dialogue and context-specific knowledge may be essential to guide the building of thresholds and defining the family farm concept at national level. In an attempt to integrate most of the relevant yet somewhat specific categories which emerged throughout the assessment of country reports, Table 6 presents an overview of holding types based on the three distinguishing criteria and major descriptive analysis variables. The seven categories proposed are meant to further encourage debate on the way the WAW international typology should be developed. For instance, questions for debate include: to what extent should family farms be disaggregated around the labor usage criterion? Should rural households not specialized in agriculture be included in the WAW international typology? How can types of the corporate farming sector be further categorized? Should different types of patronal farms be distinguished according to the intensity of labor usage? In the case of crucial descriptive variables such as diversification/specialization and asset endowments, to what extent should they also serve an identifying and not only a descriptive purpose? The aim of the table is thus to provide a framework for reflections and not an exacting typology. Building on the previously discussed country typology development experiences, another key point of reflection/discussion is related to the overall purpose of the WAW international typology and methodological framework. According to some WAW partners, the WAW international typology may become more a framework to guide country work useful to country policy work, rather than a strict set of internationally comparable types and sub-types (as those reflected in Table 6). Yet, the framework shall offer a comparable set of conceptual terms and definitions which may facilitate exchange among country partners and enrich such conceptual reflections at international level. Whether the WAW international typology is considered as a guiding scheme or a hands-on typology with different sub-types at national level will be crucial in the development of WAW roles to support country endeavors in typology building and policy analysis.

Table 6 Tentative international typology to encourage discussion

Distinguishing Criteria / Descriptive Analysis Variables

Marginal Family mainly subsistence, “survival strategies”,

Transitional multi-active farm with limited production

Multi-active farm combining activities, sufficient farm output

“Pure family” commercial farm ;Limited input & asset “peasant”

Commercial Family with little hired work & minimum capital

“ family” Patronal; mainly commercial

Patronal “with manager” ; mainly commercial

Corporate firms

Sector/data Excluded from national census (i.e. not considered as agricultural holding/HH)

Included in census & agricultural HH surveys

In census; Not in HH survey

Legal status Mostly Informal HH-managed holding

HH managed holding (formal or informal status) HH managed holding with formal status

Enterprise / professional

Corporate (non-HH holding); other capital

Management By the family, directly by the owner hired manager; possibly non-family investors

Hired manager

Family vs hired labor Only family labor.

Only family labor with limited temporary hired labor.

Only family labor with limited hired labor

Only family labor

Family labor with limited hired labor: no permanent worker & temporary labor and contract services < 50% labor force

Family labor with different forms of hired labor yet <50% of total labor force

>>50% hired Very limited family input but family owns most of the capital (absentee land owners etc

No family labor.

Production/sale Mainly subsistence/max production Limited diversification &cash crop

Min sales / production / cash crop More local May incl. other VC

Clearly commercial possibly export oriented

Off farm diversification & On-farm specialization

little on & off farm income (casual agricultural wages, landless coping strategy)

not specialized in agriculture but with stable job or activities outside agriculture

Stable off farm activities but with viable agricultural activities

Specialized in agriculture (main occupation) with limited off farm activities

Specialized in agriculture (Main occupation in agriculture)

Specialized in agriculture (Main occupation in agriculture)

Holding is specialized in agriculture but owner may have other important off farm activities

Holding is specialized in agriculture

Asset Very limited assets (incl “landless”

Limited assets Minimum asset

Minimum asset

Can be well capitalized

Capitalized potentially increasingly

5.2 Recommendations for WAW roles to support countries As a result of E-discussions around the country typology implementation reports, WAW partners expressed the academic interest and added value of such exchanges among practitioners as well as the potential to inform subsequent typology development exercises. The latter calls for a stronger role of WAW in the facilitating of south-south and triangular cooperation and the preferred tools to achieve such exchanges include: 1) E-meetings that involve country practitioners, academic and policy experts, consultants from the WAW platform and beyond ; 2) Dgroup platforms as a way to maintain close contact and organize both online and physical meetings (possibly at IICA or INTA). At the same time, further discussions are required on the incorporation of additional partners and expertise while access to a wider documentation and experience through the Dgroup was also appreciated. Country typology development teams have also been requesting further capacity reinforcement. Such includes notably technical assistance in terms of statistical tools and uses, but also for future analysis related to dynamic and temporal assessments. The latter shall also include training or support on the development of surveys to complement existing data (as highlighted by Madagascar). Also of interest is the conception and launching of the dynamic process of participation of the different stakeholders (workshops, documents) based on available resources and methodological tools (Madagascar proposal). Additionally, country typology teams mentioned the need for WAW missions (from the secretariat) to the countries so as to support the kick start of the work, the reinforcement of the capacities and further methodological development along with the involvement of key stakeholders. Funds to support these activities are also considered essential. Lastly, countries requested help in the valorization of their work. These mainly refer to the preparation and dissemination of communication documents with similar formatting to be uploaded into a common observatory website. The support could also be extended in the form of funding to participate and present their work along regional or international conferences or policy dialogue events. The requested exchanges and particularly the need for further capacity development require a common framework to guide and facilitate country work. Concerning the organization of exchanges and support in the valorization of work, WAW may continue to serve as a shared platform. Similarly, it may explore along country teams proposals for funding as well as academic and policy dissemination efforts. Regarding the capacity development, further consultations shall be carried out in order to refine method development and address the pending questions and issues which emerged from the first round of country typology implementation exercises, particularly on the nature and purpose of the WAW international typology (either as a guiding scheme for comparable conceptual terms and definitions or actual international types of holdings with distinguishable sub-types at national level). In principle, a WAW international typology toolkit could include elements which guide the whole process of typology development and implementation, from data preparation to development approach of the typology, description of types and policy analysis support. It is important to highlight that such a toolkit must be developed in unison with practitioners in order to become useful. It could be based on the following aspects:

o The toolkit could potentially develop from the initial template proposed which attempted to bring out the main steps of assessment and work (annex 2): Likewise, most participants also commended the WAW secretariat to offer not only a common template for national report but also a template for communication/dissemination strategies which can better support the valorization of country work

o The WAW toolkit may include a shared ontology to facilitate discussions, based as much as possible on existing statistical official definitions.

o The analysis of coverage of statistics and combination with other data could be carefully supported, notably on the correspondence and gap between census and household surveys. Ideally, WAW could contribute to channel expert knowledge in order to support data handling (from both census and survey sources) at country level.

o A crucial methodological step refers to the building and development of the typology. Most likely, the choice of method is constrained by data availability, thus a set of methodological options could be explored and proposed to observatories. Methodological tools may be useful in the combination of statistical and deductive approaches or in the integration of survey and census datasets.

o Organization of type descriptive analysis introducing a list of most relevant indicators to be used and adapted to each country. It may also include (based on data availability) correlation analysis between key variables. Similarly, good practices could be derived from Brazil and Nicaragua work which both used agrarian diagnosis conducted with master level students.

o The toolkit could also address issues associated to longer term monitoring systems and improvement of holding survey and census coordination particularly to effectively identify holdings throughout different sources and in different points in time.

o Considering the importance of the policy impact of such work, processes to effective stakeholder involvement should be included.

o In line with some of the country typology results, it is also important to reflect further on the local scale of work and its combination with national scale. Such notably requires development of national analysis disaggregated according to different territories. This requires further thinking on how to identify and build such territories (the latter may be similar to the international-national divide also discussed above). In addition to liaising to existing well known regions/territories in a country, further thinking may be useful on potential criteria to identify, select and characterize territories with different transformation patterns or stakes of transformations (transformation analysis is also relevant at the international and national scales). Mapping tools may be useful to showcase differences across territories and within territories which may be extrapolated into the national and international arenas.

o Most E-discussion highlighted the need to move further from statistic typology to dynamic analysis of transformations of agricultural holdings. Such may also require further proposed guidance to facilitate also comparison and exchange. Also, specific methodological tools may be needed to reflect on modalities of analysis along surveys with different scope across time (few surveys are actually

panels). Interest was also expressed in framework to guide more qualitative and stakeholders based assessment of current dynamic, key drivers and policy options and development of potential scenario of transformations

Another way for WAW to support country endeavors in typology development efforts relates to global data collection mechanisms. Collaboration could be enhanced in order to promote the collection of core WAW variables so that they become included in agricultural census and other initiatives such as that of the global strategy for statistics and household survey (LSMS-ISA). Collaboration could also be continued with the International working group on criteria for identifying family farmers. In this respect, the WAW Secretariat encourages partner countries to bring up specific national recommendations for existing data collection systems. Efforts shall be made to build collaborations with other ongoing statistical initiatives as well. At a more global level, such work would allow WAW to expand the initial recommendations to the next guidelines for the world program of censuses. The latter are mainly related to the scope of census and key variables which appear most important both for identification and description of types. Notably WAW highlighted the importance of the variable related to labor usage, a better definition of legal status (which shall also include the identification of a hired manager) (See Annex 5). The same kind of discussions started with the Global strategy for improved rural and agricultural statistics. WAW could attempt to follow up discussions on the review of the proposed key indicators to be captured.

References Berdegue, J., Fuentealba, R. (2011). Latin America: The state of smallholders in agriculture. RIMISP Paper. Blank, S. C. (2005). The Business of an Agricultural “Way of Life”. Choices, 20, 161-166. Bogdanov, N., Bozic, D. (2010). Review of agriculture and agricultural policy in Serbia. In: VOLK, T. (ed.) Agriculture in the Western Balkan Countries. Bosc, P.M., George, H., Even, M.A., Bélieres, J.F. and Loyat, J. (2012). Agricultural transformations: Their diversity and the challenges they pose. IFSA 2012 Davidova, S. and Thomson, K. (2013). Family Farming: a Europe and Central Asia Perspective. Background Report for Regional Dialogue on Family Farming: Working towards a strategic approach to promote food security and nutrition. Brussels, 2013. Daskalopoulou, I. & Petrou, A. 2002. Utilizing a farm typology to identify potential adopters of alternative farming activities in Greek agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 9. Dedieu, Courleux, (2009). Regulations of the dairy sector: what’s at stake? . Analyse 11, Centre d’étude et de prospective, France. Dorin B., Hourcade J.-C. , Benoit-Cattin M., (2013). A World Without Farmers? The Lewis Path Revisited. Paris. UMR CIRED, Documents de Travail du CIRED, n°47-2013. Ellis, F., (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. European Commission (2008). Commission Regulation (EC) No 1242/2008 establishing a Community typology for agricultural holdings. Brussels: Official Journal of The European Union. Fabiani, G., Scarano, G. (1995). Una stratificazione socioeconomica delle azienda agricole: Pluralismo funzionale e sviluppo territoriale. La Questione Agraria 59. Fréguin-Gresh, S., White, E., Losch, B. (2012). Rural Transformation and Structural Change: insights from Developing Countries facing Globalization. IFSA 2012. Goto, J. (2006). Options and limitations for enhancement of livelihoods in marginal upland areas of Java. Small-scale livelihoods and natural resource management in marginal areas of monsoon Asia. . Proceedings International Symposium on Alternative Approaches to Enhancing Small-Scale Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management in Marginal Areas-Experience in Monsoon Asia. Tokyo, Japan 29–30 October 2003. Dehra Dun Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. L. L. Saxena KG, Kono Yasuyuki and Miyata Satoru (eds). New Dehli, Vedam ebooks: 77-88.

http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/CEP_Analyse_11_anglais.pdf

Lipton, M. (2006). Can Small Farmers Survive, Prosper, or be the Key Channel to Cut Mass Poverty? Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics 3(1): 58-85. Longhitano, D., Bodini, A., Povellato, A. , Scardera, A. (2012). Assessing farm sustainability. An application with the Italian FADN sample. The 1st AIEAA Conference ‘Towards a Sustainable Bio-economy: Economic Issues and Policy Challenges’. Trento, Italy. Maltsoglou, I., Rapsomanikis, G. (2005). The contribution of livestock to household income in Vietnam: A household typology based analysis. FAO, PPLPI Working Paper No. 21. Mbétid-Bessane, E., M. Havard, et al. (2003). Typologies des exploitations agricoles dans les savanes d’Afrique centrale. Un regard sur les méthodes utilisées et leur utilité pour la recherche et le développement. Savanes africaines : des espaces en mutation, des acteurs face à de nouveaux défis. Actes du colloque, 27-31 mai 2002, Garoua, Cameroun, Prasac, N’Djamena, Tchad - Cirad, Montpellier, France. Rigg, J. (2005). "Poverty and livelihoods after full-time farming: A South-East Asian view." Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46(2): 173-184. Saravia-Matus, S., Delince, J. and Gomez y Paloma, S. (2013). Overview of Large Scale Land Transactions (LSLT´s) in the context of Food Security. May 2013 EUROPEAN COMMISSION JRC Technical Report. Timmer, P. (2009) A World without Agriculture : The structural Transformation in Historical Perspectives. The AEI Press, Washington, DC : American Entreprise Institute, 83 pages. Tittonell, P., A. Muriuki, et al. (2010). "The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa – A typology of smallholder farms." Agricultural Systems 103(2): 83-97. Tittonell, P., B. Vanlauwe, et al. (2005). "Exploring diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya: II. Within-farm variability in resource allocation, nutrient flows and soil fertility status." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 110(3–4): 166-184. Toulmin, C. and B. Guèye (2003). Transformations de l’agriculture ouest-africaine et rôle des exploitations familiales. Dossier No 123, IIED. WAW (2012) WAW Methodological Framework. WAW Secretariat & CIRAD. WAW (2013) Typology and Indicators to Characterize Agricultural Holdings for Improved Policy Formulation coordinated by Saravia-Matus S. (lead senior consultant) with support from Cimpoies D. and Ronzon T.

WAW Country Reports (2014).

France: Report Typology WAW: France. INRA, CIRAD. March, 2014

Nicaragua: Classifying Agricultural Holdings in Nicaragua Proposal of a typology based on the IV Agricultural Census. IXMATI, CIRAD. 2014

Madagascar: Résumé du rapport sur la typologie des exploitations agricoles Madagascar. CITE. February 2014

Malawi: Developing a typology of agricultural holdings for improved policy design: a preliminary case study of Malawi”. FARM. May 2014

Vietnam: International typology of agriculture holdings: The case of Vietnam. RUDEC, IPSARD, CIRAD. MARCH, 2014

Other Country Typologies:

Argentina: Las explotaciones agropecuarias familiars en la Republica Argentina. Un análisis a partir de os datos del Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2002. Edith Scheinkeman de Obschatko. PROINDER. Serie Estudios e Investigaciones 23. Buenos Aires 2009

Brazil: Guanziroli, C., Buainain, A. and Sabbato, Al. (2013) Family farming in Brazil: evolution between the 1996 and 2006 agricultural censuses, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 40:5, 817-843, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2013.857179

Annex 1: List of E-conferences, authors and participants

Title of Reports/ Date of e-conference / Link Authors of the Reports

Madagascar Typology report

E-conference held on 21st February 2014

https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p67

pzqjaqac/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb

Mode=normal

Rasolofo Patrick, Nathalie Rabemalanto, Diary Ny

Avo Ravelonatoandromanana, Jean-François

Bélières, Hélène David-Benz.

France typology Report

E-conference held on 10th march, 2014

(URL to be confirmed)

Céline Bignebat, Magali Aubert, Jean-François

Bélières, Pierre-Marie Bosc, Sawsane Bouadjil,

Rocard-Amèvi Kouwoaye, Philippe Perrier-Cornet,

Isabelle Piot-Lepetit.

Nicaragua Typology- Classifying Agricultural

Holdings in Nicaragua

E-conference held on 20th march 2014

(URL to be confirmed)

Sandrine Fréguin-Gresh, Francisco J. Pérez.

Typology Report Vietnam

E-conference held on 8th of April 2014

https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p4f

7kmksurm/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&p

bMode=normal

Hoang Vu Quang, (IPSARD/RUDEC, Team leader),

Vu Hoang Van, , Ta Van Tuong, , Pham Duy

Khanh, , Nguyen Mai Huong, , Guillaume

Duteurtre.

https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p67pzqjaqac/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal



https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p4f7kmksurm/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal



Argentina typology report- Presenting Argentina

experience in building typology of family farms

E-conference held on 10 April, 2014

https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p9n

se5amldc/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb

Mode=normal

Edith Scheinkerman de Obschatko,

Based on Argentina Report: Los Pequeños

productores en la república Argentina ; and

Argentina Report : Las Explotaciones

Agropecuarias Familiares en la República Argentina

Coordinated by Edith Scheinkerman de Obschatko

with Maria del Pilar Foti, Marcela E. Román;

involving the following institutions:

Dirección de Desarrollo Agropecuario (DDA),

Proyecto de Desarrollo de Pequeños Productores

Agropecuarios (PROINDER) Interamericano de

Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA), Ministero

de Agricultura Ganadería y Pesca.

Typology Report of Brazil-Presenting Brazilian

experience in developing definitions and

typologies of family farms in Brazil

E-conference held on 16 April, 2014


zcc3ltb7/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb

Mode=normal

Presenters: Carlos Guanziroli and Paolo Groppo

Based on paper: Carlos Guanziroli, Antonio

Buainain, Alberto Sabbato. Family Farming in

Brazil, evolution between the 1996 and 2006

agricultural censuses. The Journal of Peasant

Studies, Volume 40, Issue 5, 2013.

Malawi Typology Report

E-conference held on 27th may 2014


m7sr3rsdl/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb

Mode=normal

Mathilde Douillet, Angélique Toulon.

https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p9nse5amldc/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal



https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p11zcc3ltb7/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal



https://fao.adobeconnect.com/_a1026619000/p8m7sr3rsdl/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal



List of Authors and Participants to the e-conferences (by Institutions)

CIRAD, France : Pierre-Marie Bosc

CIRAD, Madagascar: Hélène David-Benz, Jean-Francois Bélières

CIRAD, Nicaragua: Sandrine Fréguin-Gresh

CIRAD, Vietnam: Guillaume Duteurtre

CITE, Madagascar: Patrick Rasofolo, Nathalie Rabemalanto, Diary Ny Avo Ravelonatoandromanana

FAO, Rome: Jairo Castano (ESS), Lucie Pluschke (NRL), Nancy chin (ESS), MariaGrazia Rocchigiani

(OCP), Pedro Marcelo Arias (EST) and Paolo Groppo(NRL)

FARM, Paris: Mathilde Douillet

FARM consultant, Malawi : Angelique Toulon

IFAD, Rome : Constanza Di Nucci

IICA, Argentina: Edith Obschatko (presenter and main author of study)

INRA, Montpellier: Céline Bignebat, Magali Aubert, Sawsane Bouadjil, Rocard-Amèvi Kouwoaye,

Philippe Perrier-Cornet, Isabelle Piot-Lepetit

INTA, Argentina: Roberto Bocchetto,

IPSARD/RUDEC, Vietnam: Hoang Vu Quang (team Leader) and al.

IXMATI, Nicaragua : Francisco Perez (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua)

UFRJ, Universidade Federale de Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Professor Carlos Guanziroli (presenter and main

author of study)

WAW Secretariat, Rome: Marie-Aude Even and Jean-François Giovannetti

WAW former consultancy team: Silvia Saravia Matus and Dragos Cimpoies (University of Moldova)

Annex 2: Template and general guidelines for national case study reports Proposed Format Summary Report Typology To facilitate a collective reviewing process and transversal analysis around common questions, we would like to propose each WAW partner, besides the original longer report, to work on a common outline for a shorter format presentation (5-10 pages) which could also be later used for “policy brief” dissemination as well as to guide the overall outline of the final version of the report. Building on contents of existing reports, such outline could include the following items:

Abstract and Summary table (1-2 pages)

Main achievements of the report in the assessment of the 3 distinguishing criteria (Management, Labor and Commercialization), their translation into indicator based on existing variables, the threshold used and the combinations of criteria into types labelled and characterized. You could use and adapt the example below or simply provide bullet point. Table A2.1 Example of table summarizing results

Different types Analysis per variable and way forward

Management type (based on x variable & definition)

Household (HH) management Corporate managem

ent

Multiple HH management; hired manager?

Labor (based on x variable & definition)

Only or mostly family Mixed and / or at least 1 permanent

hired labor

Only hired labor

Contract services?

Thresholds?

Commercialization (based on x variable & definition)

Subsistence and Semi-

subsistence

Commercial

Subsistence Semi-subsisten

ce

Commercial

Commercial

Presence of cash products? Type of commercialization etc.

Type names / number

1 2 3 4 5

% of holdings 20% 40% 10% 20% 10%

Key characteristics features (3 distinguishing criteria; other relevant

100% family

80% family labor

90% family 70% family 5% family

characteristics such as size, income, lean season, technical orientation etc.

Analysis per types and Eventual suggestions for further disaggregation

Diversified or not?

Approach and method used (1-2 pages)

Explain context, team involved and objectives, data used (with explanations when not census) and cleaning process, statistical process to build and assess pertinence of typology, involvement of stakeholders along process, etc. This part should also detail the process used to move from key distinguishing criteria (labor, management/status, market orientation) to more specific indicators based on existing variables in the database (example for labor: number of hired labor in equivalent full time in a year) and finally to categories / thresholds (for instance (0, >1,only hired labor; or thresholds around the % of family labor) and the combinations of the variables into types. Such step may include Data screening and eventual transformations of variables with distributional problems. Finally categories / thresholds and how they were built and assessed should be explained. Some countries used statistical tools to define thresholds (such as clusters analysis), whereas others defined them ex-ante. Some afterwards conducted regression analysis to test the pertinence of the categories, refine them or see how to merge some. Explanations of these choices among all potential options should be included. Table A2.2 Example of transition from distinguishing criteria to indicators and thresholds

Distinguishing criteria and associated variables

Definitions / indicators and support variables (eventually transformed)

Categories proposed : explanations over thresholds etc.

Management type Ex. Legal status Ex. distinguishing individual status,

cooperative and corporate

Labor Ex. Use of the variable “hired permanent labor”

for instance (0, >1,only hired labor

Commercialization

Ex. Variable on purpose of production or share of commercial production / total production

Ex. commercial, subsistence, mixed or specific quantitative thresholds

Other?

Results (3-4 pages)

Results could be summarized in 1 or 2 tables and through examples of graphs showing better the differences among the types. Elements of analysis can be done for each variable and for the combination and include the following aspects:

- Distribution in total holdings, national and territorial when the two scales are there - Characterizing and describing the different types and their key differences; Statistical

tests - Stakeholders feedback: key expectations and interests for policy, key pertinence of

types, variable and eventual additional variables recommended. Report shall include at least first feedback obtained but the final stakeholders’ feedback and validation workshop can also be done after the finalization of report thanks to the Dgroup review, which may also enable the formulation of specific questions for stakeholders

- Comparison and analysis with previously defined farm types: how does the propose typology relate to other important national typologies and important ongoing transformations? Can you allocate key important types within the proposed categories? Are there some important types which could be better separated? How could it be done?

- Crossing database spatially and / or temporally: some countries used different sources of data (ex. Madagascar used census and local based surveys; Nicaragua has also agrarian diagnosis in pilot areas, Vietnam worked on LSMS mainly but obtained census data in specific areas), which could be compared within the same location so as to see differences and how surveys can complement each other’s, or to further highlight issues pertaining to census content. Other countries used the same source of data from two years (France census 2000 and 2010) and can therefore provide interesting results in terms of dynamics. Both provides room for methodological insights on whether and how to cross such database

Conclusion: include a transversal analysis per key distinguishing criteria (labor, status-management, commercialization) and per type crossing the criteria: pertinence, limits and advantages for analysis and policy, feasibility and implementation difficulties (on methods, data). Such could include thoughts on the analysis unit (holding vs households with overlaps. Indeed, for instance Vietnam raised issues on the fact that census type data bypass many households with agricultural activities) Recommendations for the next steps (1- 2 pages)

Recommendations could lead to a reviewed typology proposal summarizing revised definitions and thresholds under the key variables, as well as the combination that make sense, proposing potential further variables for national or international adaptation. You can also present any pending questions related to emerging categories, thresholds, new dimensions to be integrated, proposed combination etc. in such format with further explanations. Recommendations should also be made in terms of Proposed consolidated statistical / implementation method, building on the evaluation of the tools used, those most useful, those not used but that could be used. In terms of the implementation process, the country teams could highlight existing capacities and needs in terms of training and adaptation of methods, difficulties and recommendations for data (improvement of existing

data, further data collection), expectation and interest vs WAW secretariat in terms of method development, network exchanges, improved collective work etc. Appendix of report

Can include: i) tables characterizing the different types, ii) tables / graphs of statistical analysis, including on the emerging distinguishing criteria and the variables most affecting each category, iii) list of database variables and their definitions etc.

Annex 3: Extracts from Wye hand book on rural statistics (2012) on country definitions of agricultural household holdings.

Below are contributions from existing literature on the definition of family farms and agricultural holdings, mixing notably the source of income, the level of production, the time of the household head on the farm etc.

Annex 4 Comparison of definitions and criteria to characterize family and non family farms The following tables provide a transversal summary of the variables mentioned in the different definitions of smallholders and family farms respectively(HLPE 2012).. Table A4.1 Example of criteria to define smallholders in country.

Labor Legal status Size, assets, economic production

Other

Argentina family labor and no permanent hired

Not registered as corporation

Upper limit of capital in terms of size, assets (machinery, size of cattle, planted/irrigated area)

Specific criteria covering agro-physical conditions & types of farming systems

Mozambique 3 class sizes combining cultivated area and livestock

Tanzania Small scale have limits in size and number of cattle

Ivory coast Modern/ traditional

Large holding of modern sector, traditional. Small are the rest

USA Gross products. Small scale sell less than 250,000 used but 91% of farms

Japan no defn

Size in land (1-2 ha) Part time farming

EU no defn size Share of subsistence

Sri lanka Non estates No parcel > 8ha

India 5 class of land, marginal (1ha), small (2ha) semi-medium above

France Economic local criteria, below viability

WAW typology review

Managed by family

Land and context specific equipment Variety of land thresholds, from 2, 10 ha.. Often criteria related to lack of access to animal or power traction (Africa) and such criteria used for differentiation

Market / output orientation. In Asia smallholders are associated to semi-subsistence or subsistence types. same Africa and Latin America Intermediate type comprises semi commercial, emergent farmers

Reg dialogue asia

Family based but can use full time and waged labor

Family based Small scale: make a parallel between FF and small scale

Diversity comes first, need of inclusive Take into account socio-demographic issues of

(ex. China) or family part time for subsistence

labor (ageing, youth etc.)

Table A4.2 Definitions and criterion for family farms.

Labor Legal status / management

Size, assets, economic production

Other

US by USDA

Substantial amount by operator and family Reasonable amount of full time hired labor, ok for temporary

Most business owned operator or its family and managed by operator

Manage to pay operators, debts etc.

Minimum sale of production

Brazil by law

Mainly family labor Management by owner / family

Less than 4 times fiscal modules (determined locally)

Most income from farm

CIRAD Family labor with eventual temporary labor but no permanent hired labor

Informal or holding type (single? ) Family management

Assets owned by family

Presence of subsistence

Davidova 2013. FAO

Operated by household or where farm labor is mostly family. But sometimes family part time

Managed by family Often sole holders, not always registered not a legal business entity

Usually own or rented capital and land. But sometimes almost nill and engage services and larger farm neighbor to work on their farm Issue around household plots, sometimes not considered though important

Live on farm Some specialized market oriented, others subsistence and semi-subsistence

Reg Dialogue MENA (Near east, North Afr

Primarily reliant on non waged family labor

Managed by one or more member of the family

Includes different production systems Often characterized by multiple activities and diversification

Reg Dialogue Asia Pacific

Family based but can use full time and waged labor (ex. China) or family part time for subsistence

Family based Small scale Diversity comes first, need of inclusive Take into account socio-demographic issues of labor (ageing, youth etc.)

Reg D Pakistan

Small landholders can be with all

Distinguish family farms below and

Labor Legal status / management

Size, assets, economic production

Other

Min family involved in farm

above 5ha

Reg D FBO Pacific Island

Family based no employee

Land customarily owned, belong to family

Diversity first Can be subsistence or cash, but start by feeding family. Cash helps retain youth

Reg Dialogue Africa

Family farms rely on family labor. It becomes a family business when long term hired labor becomes significant

Small size alone is not a good criterion

Importance to take into account typology of production systems: a) crop producers, agro-pastoralists, pastoralists ; b) mix of staple vs cash crop which defines degree of market orientation

Reg Dialogue Europe

Use of family labor but recognizing that “modern” farming often requires seasonal and regular hired labor. Argument that a high proportion of family labor shall be used, but difficulty to agree on thresholds

Sole farm holder not a legal business entity Management by family Usefulness of national definitions based on risk taking and responsibility by the family for operations (Germany)

Small size is not a good criterion

Need for international typology to improve policy targeting and analysis of effect of policy. Definitions and typology shall be suited to complex reality

FAO working definitions

operated by a family and predominantly reliant on family labor, including both women’s and men’s.

Managed by family

Includes agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production The family and the farm are linked, co-evolve and combine economic, environmental, social and cultural functions.”

Annex 5: summary recommendations made for the WCA2020 as at May 2014 1. Scope / purpose of census and use for typology development

Expand and clarify the scope and use of census to provide needed structural information to inform policy on rural transformations and agrarian structures, including diverse family farms.

Such shall also improve the framing of additional surveys, based on typologies of holding and enabling further characterization of resulting typical farms

Toolkit, Case studies and tabulations to support such work could be proposed. 2. Unit of census: agric holding, agric household and synergies with household surveys :

important point. Further work to be done to clarify connections, similarities and difference

3. Highlights on 9 key structural variables which shall be part of core / essential items After careful literature review, the following 9 variables appear crucial to be included in core and essential item of census, in response of point 1. Family farms definitions rely on two main pillars: 1) the type of labor (mainly family) and 2) the management and operations by the family. Then, key variables can delineate sub-categories with different assets and strategies, enabling correspondence with “known” categories (“small holder”, “peasant”, “subsistence”, “hobby / patio farm” etc. All are part of census core item, except labor and asset equipment 1. labor not being captured in the core, 2. legal status, but does not well capture management at this stage 3. Location of holding is key to take into account agro-ecological / livelihood zones 4. Market orientation: market insertion and degree of self-consumption 5. Off-farm diversification: increasingly important notably for household sector, in a context

of economic diversification7. Also, used as a criteria to define FF in some countries 6. Asset equipment & technologies: notably physical assets, 7. Total natural resource use: land, water, livestock etc. 8. Transversally to such categories and analysis, it appears most often needed to

disaggregate analysis along production systems which often require proxy of volume produced per product. Can help capture in farm specialization and diversification in overall categories (crop, animal, horticulture, mixed etc.), type of insertion to market intensification; etc.

9. Type of ownership of natural resource and physical capital: 4. Recommendations on the key variables proposed

a. LABOR : FAMILY VS HIRED : FF definition and WAW typology #1: After careful literature review, all family farms definitions rely at least on two main pillars which connect to the labor: 1) the type of labor (mainly family) and 2) the management and operations by the family, without hired manager. International publications and regional definitions of family farming agreed upon in the Latin America region also highlights the relevance of capturing the type of hired labor, distinguishing permanent hired labor from

7 Such was also recognized by the International task force on rural statistics, recommending expansion of scope

of agricultural holding and household surveys (see paper by Carletto and al.)

http://mortenjerven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Panel-3-Carletto.pdf

temporary labor and contract services. The type of labor used is indeed a very structural data with many implications on the type of management and results of the farm, including employment and welfare of rural populations. It was confirmed along our typology test, which showed that types differentiated according to type of labor were very different in terms of assets and also production systems and practices.

i. Recommendation: core / essential Propose a quite general item related to labor in the core module to frame more detailed surveys: Question 1 on holder labor input: is the holder the manager of the farm? If not, who is the manager? Family member or hired non family? does the holder work on the farm? Yes (full time or part time)/ no. Is he engaged in other gainful activities? (yes (as minor job or as major job) / no)? which category: 1. Own account activity related to the farm (processing, sales etc.) 2. Own account not related to the farm; 3 waged casual labor; 4. Employee; Question 2: family and non family labor input Option 1: how many HH member work on the farm as their main job? How many HH member work on the farm as secondary activity (i.e., vacation, we, evening etc.? ) How many non family labor employed permanently/ on a regular basis all year round?( non-family / family)? How many of them work full time? How many work half time all year round? Do you use non family temporary labor or agricultural services ,(non regularly (i. during season; ii. Daily / casual; iii. Agricultural services (ploughing etc..) Option 2: Do you rely more on family labor or on hired labor and contract services? 1. Only family labor, 2. mostly family labor completed by hired labor or services, 3. mostly hired labor, 4. only hired labor If category from 2 to 4, which type of hired labor : 1. Temporary casual labor, 2. permanent salaried worker all year round (add number), 3. Exchange of labor with other farms; 4 agricultural services, Option 3: fill a relatively simple table to list family labor, non family permanent and casual work, and estimate amount of work, including eventually diversification activities

ii. Recommendations for modules or survey Need to propose templates tables which can list all family and non family labor, and provides estimates of their main and minor activities, attempts to estimate their time worked on the farm and on diversification activities. Good to build on good practices, for instance template provided for farm structure surveys and census in EU (appendix), or example table from French questionnaire. Such kind of surveys could connect to surveys on agricultural practices and equipment as such are clearly interconnected.

b. LEGAL STATUS MANAGEMENT: FF definition and WAW typology #2:

Q1: to approach the sector of the holding (HH vs corporate) very close to original question: Is the legal and economic responsibility of holding assumed by 1) a natural person with a single independent holding? ; 2) one or more natural persons who is/are

partner, where holding is a group (cooperative, partnership of two single holding etc.); 3) a legal person / corporate entity made of i) family members; ii) non family members; iii) mixed ; iv) state / government/private

ADD Q2: Who is managing the holding? 1) the holder; 2) a member of the holders’ family ; 3) a hired person? (family or non family?: very important and key underlying concept of family farms

Q3 on legal status per se connects with Q1. Broad categories could be proposed to increase the usefulness above country status: 1) no legal status; 2) individual status legally recognized; 3) society; 4) cooperative, 5) state enterprise; 6) other

c. MARKET and SEL-CONSUMPTION ORIENTATION: WAW typology #3 Recommendation: core: What is the main destination (>purpose) of production

Ideally shall be approached quantitatively: Q4: Volume produced and volume sold for each production. Would help understand better production system, resulting diversity of diet and existence of cash crops (see productive orientation). Ideally, such shall also be part of the core, or put as essential item. If not, propose at least in module

Q1: home consumption Do you and your family consume directly part of the production of the holding? Yes/no. If yes, does it cover i) most of your food requirement (>50%, eventual sub-category for >75% or 90%?); ii) limited part of your food requirement (<50%) ;

Q2: sales: does the holding sell part of its production? Yes / no. If yes, 3 major options Q2i) for all his production systems, he sells more than 50% in volume or even , they are mainly meant for sales ;ii) all his products are mainly meant for self-consumption but he still sells some surplus (<50% of volume produced) iii) More complex and mixed situation: he has some specific cash products, mainly meant for sales, while others are meant mainly for home-consumption. In such case, if possible, add: what do you produce more in volume: cash products meant for sales, or staple products meant more for self-consumption?

Q3: Level of food security: Duration of food shortage faced by the holding in the last 12 months? (nil, limited days, etc.)

Module Recommendations on market chains, Q5: for each major production sold 1) direct sales to local consumers; 2) collective sale (cooperative etc.) ;3) direct to intermediate ; 4) sell to organized value chain. 5) contract with value chains (would require further work to capture minimum diversity). Q6) does he belong / sell to a specific niche value chain, with specifications of production and branding (organic, “Indication d’origine protégée”, fair trade etc.)

d. Key variables to approach other gainful activities

Core item 16: widen scope and connect to labor theme 8 Start with “does the holding have other activities than agriculture?” ?

If yes,: what are the different economic activities of the holding: notably for HH sector (connect to 811-812-813): 1) own account production i) directly related to holding (processing, sales, agri-tourism); ii) not related to holding (cloth, industry etc.) 2) jobs: how many/ is there HH member (including holder) who are a) employee on regular basis i) in agric/ ii) outside; b) do waged work ii) in agric/ ii) outside;; 3) remittance of other family members from migration i) in country; ii) foreign

If yes: do such other activities represent more than 50% of the time i) of the holder ; ii) of the household? ; Do the other activities directly related to holding represent more than 50% of the time i) of the holder ; ii) of the household?

Module labor: also include minor activities, notably carried out during the cropping season (for instance to identify activities carried out to meet immediate cash needs but which may impact the production of the holding)

Have a modular survey going more in depth on the activities and production within and outside agriculture, enabling to have a quantitative assessment of the production systems

e. Key variables to approach production systems / productive specialization Incorporate in the core, or at least in the module, a question for respondent to estimate the volume produced and sold for each of its production. Such would not only be useful for purpose of production but to estimate diversification, value added, etc…

f. Other important variables helping to measure assets

Variable Recommendation: core / essential Modular recommendations

Asset equipment (physical and indirect financial)

Introduce a core item to capture key elements of assets & practices and set frame for the corresponding modules: do you have access to credit for crop production (nil, informal, formal); use of equipment (nil, manual tools, with animal traction, powered mechanization) ; use of fertilizer (organic, mineral, nil); use of chemical (yes, no);

Detailed survey on production and practices can go in details

Land tenure

Core Distinguish short term rental from longer term secured rental, eventually distinguishing formal / non formal

104: specify categories for other rental arrangement (contract farming, share cropper?

Synthesis of WAW country case studiesA World Agricultures Watch Report

The elaboration of an international typology of agricultural holdings is a core task under the WAW methodological framework in order to 1) facilitate the comparison between different holdings, and 2) address the monitoring of transformations to inform policy debate at country level. Both aspects shall contribute to enhance poverty analysis and policy formulation, highlighting stakes and the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of the present report is to summarize the key findings of the typology developments undertaken in seven countries.

Synthesis of WAW country case studies - Food and Agriculture ...

Documents

Transcript of Synthesis of WAW country case studies - Food and Agriculture ...