Temporary buying-in system for rice (Mali)

Système d’achat temporaire du riz (French)

Description

Setting up local rice storage facilities and a fund for temporarily buying in rice after the harvest.

The objectives are to combat speculation and the impoverishment of beneficiaries.
The practice involves setting up local rice storage facilities and a fund for temporarily buying in rice after the harvest in order to (i) give growers access to ready cash, (ii) enable growers to benefit from price rises and (iii) prevent falls in the market price of rice. Growers buy back their rice stocks for the same price they sold it for and then resell it (during the period in which prices are high). Storage fees of 1,000 CFA francs per sack are charged in order to maintain and grow the fund (taking into account inflation).
A fund is made available to satellite initiatives of the project or development planners to cover the reverse repurchase of sacks of rice during harvest time at the market price. The sacks are marked by the owners and stored in PMN/IPRODI’s storage facilities. In the lean season (June to August) when rice prices are highest, growers can rebuy their sacks for the same price they were paid at harvest time plus 1,000 CFA francs per sack.
For example: In 2009, in the Attara area, sacks of rice that were reverse repurchased at 8,000 CFA francs per sack were sold in July at 15,000 CFA francs. The grower earned an extra 6,000 CFA francs, with 1,000 CFA francs being provided to the fund.
PMN/IPRODI makes funds available to the head of satellite initiatives/planners and carries out monitoring and follow-up. Planners/heads of satellite initiatives implement and monitor the practice. Growers are the clients in this process, providing rice and subsequently repurchasing it.
Implemented in Attara (Niafunké Circle), along the Bara Issa River and in the Kessou floodplain area (circles of Timbuktu and Goudam). Approximately 1,000 tonnes of rice are stored per year. The fund only works with targeted growers who have an obvious need for such assistance. There are four storage centres holding a total of eight storage facilities. The practice has been in place since 2000. Annual audits show that the funds are growing. The client base is regular and unchanging.

Location

Location: circles of Timbuktu, Goudam, Niafunké, Mali, Mali

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 2000

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
Setting up local rice storage facilities and a fund for temporarily buying in rice after the harvest; combat speculation and the impoverishment of beneficiaries
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: lack of local rice storage facilities; speculation; impoverishment
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: speculation, impoverishment Treatment through the SLM Approach: enables a fund to be built up over time in order to (i) give growers access to ready cash, (ii) enable growers to benefit from price rises and (iii) prevent falls in the market price of rice. Growers buy back their rice stocks for the same price they sold it for and then resell it (during the period in which prices are high).
  • Other: lack of local rice storage facilities Treatment through the SLM Approach: setting up local rice storage facilities

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
private sector
local government
national government (planners, decision-makers)
international organization
banks
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
planning
implementation
monitoring/ evaluation
Research
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international: 100.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
A fund is made available to satellite initiatives of the project or development planners to cover the reverse repurchase of sacks of rice during harvest time at the market price.
partly financed
fully financed
local rice storage facilities

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

The fund only works with targeted growers who have an obvious need for such assistance; provides protection for growers with low incomes (1,000 to 1,500 people)

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Implemented in Attara (Niafunké Circle), along the Bara Issa River and in the Kessou floodplain area (circles of Timbuktu and Goudam). The practice has been in place since 2000. Annual audits show that the funds are growing. The client base is regular and unchanging.

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • combat speculation and the impoverishment of beneficiaries: setting up local rice storage facilities and a fund for temporarily buying in rice after the harvest in order to (i) give growers access to ready cash, (ii) enable growers to benefit from price rises and (iii) prevent falls in the market price of rice
  • provides protection for growers with low incomes (1,000 to 1,500 people)
  • prevents growers from falling into debt
  • enables a fund to be built up over time (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Success factors and constraints: Availability of the rice fund; simple procedures; sufficient storage capacity available; credible management that growers can trust)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

References

Compiler
  • Dieter Nill
Editors
Reviewer
  • Laura Ebneter
Date of documentation: Dec. 16, 2014
Last update: June 26, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014.: http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb
  • Description of the trust fund approach:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International