Integrating neglected crops in global

value chains: the case of quinoa in

Southern Bolivia

Enrico Avitabile

RomaTre University

1. Background1.1 Rationale and motivation1.2 Introduction to the case study

2. Quinoa value chain in Southern Altopiano in Bolivia2.1 Farmers wellbeing2.2 Upgrading 2.3 Governance

3. Conclusions3.1. Different development models for quinoa’s

future

BACKGROUNDRationale and Motivation

Recent food crisis contributed to deepening the debate about food

security and the right of people to define their own food systems.

Increasing interest has been shown regarding how so-called neglected

and underutilized species (NUS) can contribute to the fight against

malnutrition and poverty.

But what happens when one of these NUS becomes rapidly and

increasingly integrated in global markets ?

Case Study:

Quinoa, an Andean grain cultivated essentially in Bolivia, Peru and

Ecuador

Quinoa has been “rediscovered” as a “superfood” because of its high

nutritional values

FAO (2011), Rojas et al. (2010), Scoones (1998)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Pro

du

cti

on

- E

xp

ort

(t)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Pri

ce

(U

SD

/t)

5000

B.C.

First evidences

of quinoa

cultivation

1492

New food

regimes –

qiunoa

becomes

“neglected”

Anni

‘70

New quinoa production

systems

Anni

‘80

First producer

organizations are

established

Anni

‘90

First private firms

Anni

2000

Quinoa boom

BACKGROUNDQuinoa figures in Bolivia

Area cultivada y Rendimento

010000200003000040000500006000070000

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Ha

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Re

nd

ime

nto

Area Cultivada

Rendimento

AVSF, (2009), Caceres et al. (2007), FAUTAPO (2011), Laguna (2011), Medrano & Torrico (2009), Ofstehage (2012), Rojas et al.

(2004) Rojas et al. (2010)

Killer quinoa?

Time to debunk these

urban food mythsQuinoa: good, evil,

or just really complicated?

------ Production

------ Export

------ Price

BACKGROUNDPresentation of case study

Questions:

Q1: How quinoa boom affected farmers wellbeing ?

Q2: How quinoa VC changed ? And what the consequences ?

FIELDWORK INFORMATIONS

2012 November – 2013 April

Interviews with privileged speakers (market map)

Farmers survey

Semi-structured interviews with agroindustrial players (private firms and producer organizations)

Workshop with exporters and international buyers

BACKGRUNDSouthern Altopiano characteristics

Self -consumption

Input

providers

Quinoa

farmersSelling

- Associated

- Indipendents

- Residentes

- Permamentes

Consultant/

Technical

assistance

Informal Intermediates

Private firms

Producers Associations

Domestic Market

Export Market

(US, EU, Asia…)

-Retailers

-Restaurants

-Aid programs

-Public

Procurement

-Organic

-Fair trade

-Mainstream

markets

Certifiers

Smuggling - Peru

Trade Chambers of quinoa

exporting organizations

Government (local and central level, formal and informal institutions)

FARMERS

BUYERS

AGRO-

INDUSTRY

Informal markets

2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

Farmers wellbeing

Dimension Indicators Comments

Economic

•Incomes

•Credit (access and

utilization)

•Increasing specialization

•Price volatility

•Cost of production rising

•Inequalities increasing

Social

•Education

•Basic assets

•Auto-evaluation wellbeing

•Presence of large governmental

infrastructural programs

Nutrition

•Food consumption score

•Food expenditure

•Quinoa consumption

•Role of intermediates

•Need of better understanding about urban

consumption drivers

Environment •Soil erosion

•Lama/Ha ratio

•Biodiversity loss

•Need of better understanding of

“underutilization” of biodiversity

Cultural identity?•No food uses

•Variety preferences

•Traditional institutions

(Ayni)

•Reverse migration flows

2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

Upgrading

KEY QUESTIONS: Technology improvement

Reorganizing activities within the V.C.

Identify areas to increase added value

EVIDENCE: Social and economic improvements

Organic certification

Increasing distances between farmers and buyers

Decrease in farmers associations market share

Low development of agro-industry

Emerging differences between farmers associations

and private firms value chains

2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

Upgrading

(Lack of ) Agroindustry development:

Linkages: Better biodiversity utilization

Diminishing pressure over production increase

Development of new products more appropriated to

domestic market

The “private firms” chain seems to be more active in this field:

- Larger financial capacity

- Better networking activity

- More active in differentiating market opportunities

2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

Governance

KEY QUESTIONS: Identify formal and informal rules

Identify who establishes the rules and monitor their

enforcement

Effectiveness of existing rules

EVIDENCE: Change in rules is associated to the shift from

“producer-driven” toward “buyer-driven”

Increasing use of codified standards

Traditional rules (institutions) are more effective for

some use (e.g. land conflicts)

2. VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

Governance

Changes (and conflicts) about governance reflect in low effectiveness to

face questions emerging after the quinoa boom

Examples:

Organic vs. sustainable Buyers are interested in organic

production, but this by itself in not able to

ensure sustainable production over time

Equilibrium between agricultural activity

and other economic activity (e.g. lama

breeding)

Some standards (e.g. fair trade) have

prescriptions about it, but they are few

effective

Price management It is now “fair” for farmers; too high for

private firms and buyers; presence of

different expectations for public policy in

this area

Governance as driving From producer-driven to buyer driven

Governance as linking From relational to market structure

Governance as normalizing From domestic-market to civic-market convention

Ponte and Sturgeon (2014), Gereffi (1994), Gereffi, Humphrey and Sturgeon (2005), Ponte and Gibbon (2005)

Product focused model Farmer focused model

Governance

driving

Buyer Producer

Price level Low High (but associated with public policy to

promote domestic consumption)

Product policy Standardization Specification and diversification

Producer

specialization

Yes No (do not detach quinoa VC from other

economic activity, e.g. lama VC)

Policy

demanded

Support to increase productivity Support to domestic market

Market priority Exports Domestic

Risks Environmental sustainability, low

productivity, new country entries

(suppliers)

No rise in domestic consumption

(and resulting price and income decrease)

3. CONCLUSION

Different development models for future of quinoa

3. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Commodity model vs. Food sovereignty model

The establishment and development of a quinoa GVC was

fundamental to enhance social and economic conditions for

Bolivian farmers.

Now players (not only farmers) have to face new risks

deriving from this success itself (social and environmental

sustainability)

Changes and conflicts along the VC reveal different

strategies to manage this new situation

Public policy is the missing player in quinoa story

THANKS !

enrico.avitabile@uniroma3.it