Impact Assessment of FRIJOLNICATM Project
Report
March, 2015
1
Table of contents
1.
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.
Main findings and analysis ................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Socio-economic aspects ...................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Economic aspects ............................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1. Producers .................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2. Cooperatives ............................................................................................................. 10
3.3. Environmental results ..................................................................................................... 12
3.4. Insights on the FRIJOLNICA™ program ........................................................................... 14
4.
Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 17
4.1. Conclusions and recommendations on FRIJOLNICA™ Program ..................................... 17
4.2. Matching the indicators of the Sustainable Food Lab´s (SFL) Performance measurement
framework against FRIJOLNICA™ program scope ................................................................. 19
4.3. Recommendations on Smallholders Program Activities and Indicators ........................ 20
4.4. Recommendations on Good Growth Plan Management.................................................. 22
2
1. Introduction
In light of its global Good Growth Plan commitment to reach 20 million smallholders by 2020,
Syngenta aims to support smallholders in sustainably improving their productivity and
profits, and more generally their livelihoods. Syngenta does so through different projects
targeted at growers’ needs - these range from providing technologies and products and access
to agronomic know-how, to credit and technical support.
One such smallholder initiative is the FRIJOLNICA ™ project in Nicaragua. Prior to 2006, most
bean farmers did not use high-tech agricultural inputs and had low yields, limited access to
loans, training and technical assistance. In view of these limitations, Syngenta –partnering
with its distributor RAMAC- established the “FRIJOLNICA ™ ” (Nicaraguan Bean) program to
provide growers with inputs, technologies, access to credit and technical support, so they
could increase their income. Most of the farmers involved belong to different cooperatives
that actively collaborate with Syngenta, many of them located in the Jinotega and Matagalpa
regions.
Syngenta requested CIMS to assess the impact of this project in the target population under
the scope of its commitment to empower smallholders. The following sections describe the
methodology, results and discussion of the main findings. Additionally, some conclusions and
considerations are also shared. In order to facilitate the reading of the text, most of the
frequency distributions charts, statistical tests and figures have been consolidated in a Power
Point presentation.
2. Methodology
The research was conducted between November 2014 and January 2015. Field work was
largely conducted during November, while data consolidation and analysis were completed
during December and January 2015. Field data was collected along three departments of
Nicaragua, where the program has been established since 2006: Jinotega, Matagalpa and
Estelí (see Figure 1).
3
Figure 1. Location of the regions where data was collected.
The sample involved 150 bean producers selected using Simple Randomized Sampling
without replacement1. From the overall sample, 110 individuals were part of Syngenta´s
FRIJOLNICA ™ program, and these were considered the Treatment group. 40 individuals not
participating in the program but sharing geographical, agro-ecological and cultural
characteristics formed the Control group. Data was collected from both groups through a
questionnaire containing open and closed questions that allowed the capture of both
quantitative and qualitative information. Social, economic, environmental and perception
variables were considered to design the architecture of the data set. The experimental design
assumed that the impact of the project is conceived as the difference between the Control
group and the Treatment group, as well as the perception of the farmers on the “before” and
“after” project. However, there were additional tests that aimed to measure the effect of years
of membership in the project in terms of productive/economic performance and a benchmark
exercise against national official data.
3. Main findings and analysis
From the overall analysis of data it can be observed that in general terms both FRIJOLNICA ™
producers (Treatment) and non-FRIJOLNICA ™ producers (Control) are very similar groups.
This homogeneity is a desired feature when using counterfactual approaches to determine or
1
Each individual is chosen randomly and entirely by chance, such that each individual has the same
probability of being chosen at any stage during the sampling process, and each subset of k individuals
has the same probability of being chosen for the sample as any other subset of k individuals. One
deliberately avoids choosing any member of the population more than once.
4
identify particular effects between both groups, in this case the fact of being or not being part
of the FRIJOLNICA ™ Program.
Most of the producers in both groups grow beans on less than 2 ha of land; most of them are
also owners of this land and grow both red and black beans; a few producers grow only black
beans. Both Treatment and Control producers have vast experience growing beans - most of
them have 10 years or more in bean-related agricultural activities. Also, in both groups it is
common to be part of an organization (cooperative). However, it should be pointed out that
this tendency is stronger within the Treatment group.
3.1 Socio-economic aspects
The head of the household is usually a man in both Treatment and Control groups. Both
populations can be considered young since most of the producers are less than 45 years old.
There are few producers who are illiterate (less than 8% in both cases). However, the
majority of the producers did not finish elementary school. Income levels are very similar in
both populations: more than 60% of both groups´ households live with less than US$6/day.
One quarter of the Control group lives on less than US$2.5/day compared to one fifth of
farmers in the Treatment group. (The World Bank definition of poverty is those who live with
US$2 or less per day).
Beans represent more than 50% of household income for more than half of the producers.
Grains and livestock are other important sources of income for both Treatment and Control
groups. Most producers have to support between 3-5 members of their family. On the
question of child labor and access to education no major concerns were revealed - most
children under 15 attend school and only a very few have to work in and/or out on the farm.
Horseback is the main mean of transportation and at least a third of both populations have
access to radio, mobile and TV.
In terms of gender, characteristics of both populations are clearly patriarchal. Decisionmaking regarding crops, payments, attending to training/coop workshops are clearly
dominated by men. In terms of food security2 findings indicate that there are 2-3 months
along the year when access to food is considered as “limited”. These months concur during the
hardest part of the rainy season (July, August, and September) which is usually considered to
be the main reason why people consider having less access to food.
2
According to the World Food Summit 1996 “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have
physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life”
5
Farmer perceptions
The Treatment group is clearly more optimistic about their current economic condition.
50% of them consider their economic condition has improved compared to 5 years ago, while
only 24% of the Control group consider this to be the case. Indeed, 40% of the Control group
consider they are in a worse economic condition than 5 years ago. 25% of the treatment
group growers feel their economic situation is better today than 5 years ago because the farm
is more productive, whereas only 12% of the control group believe their economic situation is
better today than 5 years ago because the farm is more productive. (see Figure 2a and 2b.).
2a. Perception of bean producers regarding current economic condition compared to 5 years ago.
2b. Perception of bean producers regarding the cause of their economic condition improvement.
Interestingly, the “additional” income cited (from farmers who considered that their economic
condition had improved) was, in the Treatment group, mainly invested back in the farm,
while in the Control group it was invested mostly in house infrastructure. Considering this
difference, it would appear that farmers in the Treatment group are more focused on growing
their business, while the Control group is still focused on meeting more basic needs. In both
of these groups most of the producers have optimistic views on the future of beans, enough to
hope that their children would be involved in the continuation of the farm business.
6
Regarding aspects of training and technical assistance there was a clear difference between
Treatment and Control producers; clearly the producers who are enrolled in the FRIJOLNICA™
have significantly better access to training and technical assistance (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Frequency of bean producers receiving training.
It is worth mentioning that in both Treatment and Control groups training and technical
assistance are mainly provided by the local cooperative.
With regard to access to credit (cash loans specifically) there was little for either Treatment
or Control groups; however, in cases where producers said they had loans the sole provider is
the Cooperative. Such credit is usually received in the form of inputs, and from the producer´s
perspective it is not therefore perceived specifically as credit.
3.2 Economic aspects
3.2.1. Producers
Economic results showed a high degree of homogeneity between both Control and Treatment
groups. Yields were similar between both Treatment and Control groups (approximately 37
qq/ha, average). It is worth mentioning that both groups of producers showed outstanding
yields when compared to the national average (17 qq/ha in 2012 and 20 qq/ha in 2013
according to FAOSTAT). The average yield of both producer groups is double the national
average. - of the FRIJOLNICA™ producers, 93% are above the national average, and in the case
of the Control group 86% are above the average. (See Figure 4).
7
Figure 4. Benchmark of yields using national averages.
The average cost of producing 1 qq of beans is also very similar for both groups - slightly
lower in the case of the Treatment group but with no statistical difference. In the case of
prices a significant difference was found (at 90% confidence level), indicating that the
Treatment group has access to higher prices than the Control group. This condition explains
the fact that FRIJOLNICA™ producers have an average higher net income than the Control
group, even though the difference is not statistically significant.
The effect that length of time in the program (‘seniority’) has on economic performance
shows some interesting results. Producers who had participated for more than 4 years in the
FRIJOLNICA™ program tend to show a significantly better economic performance (p value ˂
0, 05) than “younger” producers and Control group producers – both in terms of yields, prices
and net incomes. (See the effect of ‘seniority’ on PPT slides 51-59). Also see Figure 5 overleaf.
8
Figure 5. Economic performance of Treatment producers depending on seniority.
When “senior producers” are compared to the Control group, the difference between both
groups becomes more evident in terms of prices and net income (p value ˂ 0, 05). However,
yields do not show a significant difference between these two groups, even though on average,
“senior producers” have higher yields than the Control group (see figure 6).
Figure 6. Economic performance of ‘senior’ Treatment producers compared to Control group.
9
Overall, yield and prices are significantly (p value ˂ 0, 01) and positively correlated to a higher
net income. However, yields show a higher degree of correlation with net income than prices;
in other words, yields have a higher impact over the overall net income than prices do.
Prices showed a particularly high degree of variation within groups and between groups.
Indeed, price was the factor that showed the strongest significant difference between groups
when ANOVAs3 were carried out.
These results may at first sight appear odd – that is, it seems unlikely that producers who sell
their beans to the same cooperatives might get different prices. However, on further
discussion with local Syngenta representatives it was clear that factors such as location
(degree of access to the farm) and quality of crop like humidity and “purity” (clean of leaves,
dirt and sticks) of the bean, could improve the final price the producer receives; additionally if
producers used commercial channels other than the cooperative, the price might also be
different.
Findings showed that no significant labor practices or inputs correlated to increased yield
except investments in Fungicides and Insecticides. Producers who invested more in fungicides
and insecticides tended to have higher yields and therefore saw more impact in terms of
overall net income (see PPT, slides 60-62). In this case, the key learning is that insufficient
investment in fungicides and insecticides is more likely to lead to lower yields and therefore
less net income; and not necessarily, that the more fungicide/insecticide they apply the higher
the yield.
In light of this latter observation, it is worth noting that an interview with one of the
cooperatives hinted at the absence of an acaricide on the agrochemical package of
"FRIJOLNICA™ ". This shortage of products could be related to outdated methods used by
cooperatives to manage its inventory system. Therefore, the quantities of product ordered
from RAMAC-Syngenta can be very vague regarding the demand.
This product scarcity may open gates for entrance of competitors into these product
categories, a phenomenon that could end in Syngenta’s products brand erosion from the
farmer’s perspective.
3.2.2. Cooperatives
Local cooperatives are recognized as an important pillar of the agricultural community, both
to facilitate local and international commercialization (in the case of second tier cooperatives)
3
An ANOVA test is a statistical analysis that allows to see if there exist statistical differences for a variable
between two groups of data.
10
expeditiously and transparently, and improve the market signals that their producers receive.
Likewise, cooperatives are the final link in the chain between Syngenta and small producers,
so their understanding and conviction to carry out the objectives of FRIJOLNICA™ - beyond
the commercial component - is key.
Field interviews with 3 cooperatives decision-maker suggest that FRIJOLNICA™ has
strengthened the size, scope and linking up the cooperative network in which Syngenta and
Ramac are supported to reach small farmers. Tangible improvements were identified in both
capital, knowledge and procedures, namely:
-
Access to credit, due to secured-volume contracts, which now serve as credit
-
guarantee.
Technology transfer, especially related to sourcing and securing the use of certified
seed, recognized by them as key for quality and better prices.
-
Improvement in handling technical and capital donations, due to the actual reach
of their operations.
-
Improved capacity to increase a credible membership base, which encompasses an
increase of inputs credit allocation 4.
Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in areas such as input credit management,
development planning and market intelligence proficiency.
The interviews revealed a lack of capacity both in terms of headcount and expertise which
affected the development of some of these cooperatives. Good credit management input is
what creates increased interest and confidence in a producers association. Although
cooperatives had well established credit mechanisms, they seemed insufficiently capable to
assure a good inputs credit allocation to farmers. Some were collecting borrowers’ illiquid
goods, such as cattle and land, due to loan non-payment. This mismanagement reduces the
liquidity of cooperatives, which in turn becomes a distraction from focusing on taking
advantage of optimum market conditions, with direct consequences to the smallholder
associates: primarily, in their net income, and with shortages in their inputs supply in the
medium term.
Some decision-makers in these cooperatives appear to lack the ability for market analysis and
strategic planning. This pattern would explain why in most decisions and incentives to
producers, members focus on the short term - for example in supporting the production of red
beans when their prices are high-, leaving aside the production of black beans, where demand
and prices are much more stable. This dynamic adds volatility not only to commercial and
4
This phenomenon seems to be associated with formal procedures for allocation and collection of loans.
11
cooperative credit operation but also to net incomes of smallholders, undermining their
ability to repay loans and their confidence in the co-operative.
In the same vein, there is evidence of a lack of operational capacity and planning – e.g.
processing capacity and storage of inputs and seeds – which is reflected in not taking
advantage of access to credit and, in turn, not transferring better margins to associates.
The interviews also highlighted that despite the positive product attributes of the
FRIJOLNICA™ know-how and inputs package as mentioned by the agricultural extension
workers - including the inputs credit conditions, the training sessions and the good selling
contracts the Co-ops sign - their technicians have proved to be insufficiently loyal to
Syngenta products, which has therefore diminished the impact of the Program as a whole. By
way of example, one technician said that he had already arranged his own technology inputs
package, which he offers to all cooperative members when red bean price falls under a certain
level, claiming that Syngenta’s products are overpriced, suggesting that his own technology
package achieves similar yields, and that his co-op associates will have a better chance to
repay their loans to the cooperative. Neither the cooperative nor the technician are
sufficiently incentivized to avoid this sort of practice.
3.3. Environmental results
Results on environmental aspects showed strong similarities between both Treatment and
Control groups; there is a lot of room to improve in both. Even though only a few producers
have irrigation systems, there were no records or sense of how much water is used growing
beans and related activities. Soil management appeared to be one of the few areas that
showed good practices in general terms, with the Treatment group performing slightly better.
Most of the producers from both groups used hand tillage as a method of soil preparation
(which prevents erosion and lixiviation) and both also practice crop rotation. Most of the
producers in the Treatment group confirmed that they had a soil conservation barrier, which
was not the case in the Control group (see Figure 7).
12
Figure 7. Presence of soil conservation barriers. (Green: Treatment; Blue: Control – suggest color codes
as with earlier charts not words)
Herbicide application was a very common practice in both groups. However what is really
important to highlight is that most of the producers defined the amount of agrochemical input
based on their own knowledge and experience and not necessarily based on the criteria of the
agronomist (see Figure 8). This may lead to over-(or under)utilization of agrochemicals which
could have negative consequences for the environment (water sources, soil health,
biodiversity).
Figure 8. Reference used for agrochemical applications.
Most of the producers in both groups did not keep a record of agrochemical applications and
neither groups possessed a washing tank clean the equipment used for applications. Despite
generally unsatisfactory environmental performance, most producers had a good
understanding and awareness of environmental sustainability concepts.
13
3.4. Insights on the FRIJOLNICA™ program
Most of the producers interviewed were rather new to the FRIJOLNICA™ Program. More than
60% of them have been part of the program 4 years or less, which also explains why more
than 65% of them had attended no more than 4 training sessions. This coincides with the
period of greatest development of small cooperatives located far from downtown of Jinotega,
Estelí and Matagalpa, and the emergence of larger producers who "associate" a group of small
farmers nearby, which in many cases are not members of cooperatives.
Farmer views of the program
In general, producers were satisfied with the program; nevertheless, there were also a few
complaints. The vast majority of producers perceive that the access to inputs, training,
technical assistance and credit had improved significantly since they entered the program
(see Figure 9).
Figure 9. Perception of FRIJOLNICA™ producers towards input and training access.
It seems that the program has made an important effort to offer certified seed to the
producers through the cooperative, however there is still work to do regarding pre-treatment
of the seed when sowing. Producers have still not embraced the importance of the PPE
(Personal Protective Equipment) equipment; most of them consider it uncomfortable or
expensive. However, most of them do have a specific place for keeping agrochemicals. One of
aspects of most concern is the handling of empty agrochemical containers - most of the
producers throw them into a hole and burn them or simply mix it up with regular household
trash (see Figure 10).
14
Figure 10. Empty agrochemical containers management.
Virtually all producers indicated that they would recommend the program to a friend or a
relative, and most considered that they were satisfied with the program in terms of access to
inputs and services, yield, income, environment, relationship with agronomists and ease of
selling the product (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. General perception of the FRIJOLNICA ™ program on various aspects.
15
Finally, it is worth mentioning that 70% of the producers affirmed that they will definitely or
very probably continue within the program in coming years. 80% of them considered that the
program had improved their overall farming skills and performance.
16
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1. Conclusions and recommendations on FRIJOLNICA™ Program

Bean producers in the studied regions share very similar features in terms of sociodemographic, economic and cultural characteristics. These regions are home to typical
agricultural and livestock-driven towns where most of the inhabitants have had a
close relationship with the land during their whole lives and have gathered vast
experience in a range of crops and farming activities.

In general most FRIJOLNICA™ producers consider that they have experienced
progress in their economic performance over the last 5 years, driven largely by a
yield increase in their main crops and other related agricultural activities. They also
appear to be optimistic about their future in the agricultural business - a refreshingly
rare and positive state of affairs amongst most farmers - and it suggests an interesting
opportunity for Syngenta and FRIJOLNICA™ representatives to develop broader
activities within FRIJOLNICA™, engaging more people in existing programs, especially
given the positive feedback from bean producers.

Bean yields in the regions where FRIJOLNICA™ is deployed are significantly
higher than the average national yields. Both Non-FRIJOLNICA™ producers and
FRIJOLNICA™ producers harvest more than double Nicaragua´s average yields; indeed,
close than 90% of producers are above the reported national average. FRIJOLNICA™
producers showed a slightly higher average yield compared to non-FRIJOLNICA™
producers. However, the difference is not significant, reflecting the broader
similarities in both populations from a production perspective. These results suggest
the possibility that the FRIJOLNICA™ program has introduced a set of practices and
technologies that have improved yields in these specific regions, and that these
practices have been dispersed and adopted by bean producers whether they are in the
program or not. The diffusion of successful practices is a known occurrence in many
sectors, particularly in the agricultural one. If this hypothesis (which would need to be
tested) was to be true, in this particular case the diffusion and impact of this program
is greater than could have been anticipated. Therefore, it makes more sense to
measure and determine the impact of this kind of program on a chronological basis
and not necessarily using a counterfactual basis over a fixed period.
17

‘Seniority’ in the program seems to be a significant factor for the overall
productive and economic performance. Producers who have been in the program
for more than 4 years showed significantly better economic results than those who
have been engaged less than 4 years. Prices are particularly different between these
two groups, and one of the factors that might explain this result could be related to the
fact that “senior producers” know and manage better the quality criteria and therefore
have access to the best prices possible; however, this is another hypothesis that needs
to be tested. If this hypothesis was to be true, it makes a lot sense to use ‘senior
producers’ as additional peer-to-peer- trainers for new farmers. Given resource
constraints of local teams/co-ops, such tactic could be an efficient way of expanding
program plus incentivizing the farmer/trainers.

The FRIJOLNICA™ program is seen as a “membership” program, indicating a positive
perception within producers who have been engaged with it; the program has been
successful in creating an optimistic and trusting environment which has as a
consequence generated loyalty to the Initiative, to Syngenta Brand Portfolio and to
continued bean production.

There is a clear opportunity for developing a solid waste management program
focused on empty containers. Current empty container management practices are
not desirable neither in terms of human nor environmental health. A re-using and
collection program involving producers’ households keeping and returning (avoiding
disposal and burning) empty containers in exchange of some incentive (discounts,
products, etc.) would be a productive initiative in terms of both better health
outcomes, public relations and loyalty to the FRIJOLNICA™ program. A program of this
fashion could be designed together with the cooperatives and could also become an
opportunity to bring women closer to FRIJOLNICA™, by making them responsible for
each associate household collection activity within a co-op operated program.

A set of incentives and capacities other than the commercial ones would make
the “desired social impacts for smallholders” compelling to their implementing
partners (in this case the Cooperatives) - the latter have proven to be insufficient
for Co-op leaders to fully understand and endorse FRIJOLNICA™ for all the co-benefits
the program brings in terms of both social and environmental concerns. Thus it is
recommended to consolidate the FRIJOLNICA™ program with a new set of coopmanagement training –parallel to the actual farmer-oriented training- to
enhance cooperatives managerial and technical capacities, so they can understand the
18
fuller value of the Program. Such training program would discourage co-ops extension
workers from developing their own inputs packages.

As a final recommendation on the program, it could bring great benefits for Syngenta
to deepen its relationship with INTA (Nicaraguan Agricultural Technology Institute) to
fully understand and support the goals of the Institute’s subsidized certified seed
program. This would not only raise the profile of the program at a more national level,
but support the company’s ‘license to operate’ in the country as it seeks to develop its
business and grow its sustainable farming strategy.
4.2. Matching the indicators of the Sustainable Food Lab´s (SFL) Performance
measurement framework against FRIJOLNICA™ program scope
 The FRIJOLNICA™ program involves the deployment of three main actions at
smallholder level that have been assessed: Input access (credit and availability),
agrochemical safety (training) and improved agricultural practices (training and
assistance). The commercial distributor (Ramac) and the cooperatives are the main
actors involved in the delivery of these activities in the field, with Syngenta supplying
the crop protection products and supporting the latter by sharing its expertise and
providing producers trainings. The program also counts with the commercial alliance
between the commercial distributor and a buyer (Esperanza Coop) ensuring
commercial stability of the smallholders involved in the program.
 Table 1. below shows which FRIJOLNICA™ program main activities could potentially
lead to improve which SFL framework indicators related to improving livelihoods and
well-being of farmers. The benchmark highlights that some indicators are not directly
approached by the activities involved in the scope of FRIJOLNICA™ program. In
particular, the program does not envision any activity that would deal with the Assets,
Gender and Environmental Impact issues. Such gap would need to be elucidated when
designing the scope of further projects aimed at improving smallholders livelihoods. –
see also below Recommendations on the Good Growth PlanAs explained above, the actual impact of these specific activities on each commitment
indicator could hardly be dissociated and proved due to the lack of baseline data and
to a control group performance very similar to the treatment group.
19
Table 1. Match-matrix of FRIJOLNICA™ Scope and Smallholder indicators
Activities of Frijol Nica Program
Actors involved
Credit/Availability of inputs
Training on safety
Training on agricultural
practices
Commercial alliance (for
beans sales)
Cooperatives, commercial
distributor
Commercial distributor,
Syngenta
Commercial distributor,
Syngenta
Commercial distributor,
Bean buyer
X
X
Smallholder commitment indicators
Participation in training
Productivity
X
Profitability
X
Access and adoption of inputs and services
X
X
X
X
X
Food Security
X
Income
X
X
X
X
Assets
X
Perceived well-being
X
Gender
X
Environmental impact
4.3. Recommendations on Smallholders Program Activities and Indicators

The FRIJOLNICA™ Impact Assessment experience provides great inputs to revise the
principles, systems and procedures –at both global and local scale- to measure
smallholders program progress in the future. This feedback process may start by
viewing smallholders’ program local goals as part of a broader set of KPIs across their
other commercial and agronomical programs.

To determine how food secure farmers are in a given project is quite a challenge,
since the way of asking may sound disrespectful depending on the culture, region,
country or many other reasons. In the research, the question on which local data
collectors and CIMS agreed on was whether they have “limited access” to food at some
period of the year. However the latter did not allow identifying if this limited access
involves skip meals, reduce meal size or change diet. For further assessments that
involve measuring food security it is highly recommended to identify the clear causes
of the issue, -for instance food availability, climate related limitations, income related
scarcity, etc. - since the ultimate objective should be to identify if Syngenta is able to
tackle or control the problem as an organization or, if it should build local alliances
with public-private partners.
20

For FRIJOLNICA™ and possibly other smallholders programs, sustainability and
reliability of both the commercial entity buying the target crop –a second level
cooperative in the case of FRIJOLNICA™- , and the smallholders organization -cooperatives, etc.- are relevant indicators to measure, on one level program expansion
and possible positive effects on farming communities in which programs are
developed. Thus, if the program is still valuable for producers' associations - for
example, creating better members services, ensuring affordable access to inputs and
ensuring a stable demand for production- these entities could be more loyal programs
like FRIJOLNICA™, with greater incentives to increase their membership base - and
program beneficiaries.
In this context, it is considered that two indicators could help measure progress on
sustainability and reliability of the associativity and of the commercial relationship in
which a smallholders program relies.
The first one could be the percentage of fulfilled Product Purchase Agreements with
agreed price during a given period, by a second tier trader entity (i.e. Second level coop: such as EsperanzaCoop or a commercial entity).
The second one, could be the percentage of fulfilled Product Purchase Agreements
with agreed volume during a given period, by an entity that associates producers
output (i.e. First Level Cooperative).

In the case of FRIJOLNICA™ –but also applied in general to other smallholders
Programs-it is recommended to search for mechanisms that generate greater
female participation (not necessarily in crop production). This could be safe use and
disposal of product containers training. There is indeed evidence that producers’
common practice is to store empty containers near their home places where, most
women direct activities are complementary to bean production, such as childcare and
food storage. The design of such training activities would have to take into account
their specific daily schedule and constraints to make sure they can participate. Once
women-specific training activities have been deployed, an indicator of associate
household coverage-amongst those households already involved in FRIJOLNICA™- of
these activities should be constructed to assess the reach of these activities.

Last, CIMS welcomes the efforts that Syngenta has made working on Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) related practices with smallholders, by incorporating IPM
components in trainings provided to farmers, such as among others culture rotation
and pest monitoring in the case of FRIJOLNICA™. Working on IPM is strategically key
for smallholders to reach sustainability. They do need to be taught on the IPM concept
and go deeper in it.
21
CIMS recommends Syngenta to build on the work done on this topic and strengthen it,
with a medium to long term objective of empowering producers in evaluating,
deciding and controlling their crop and practices, and in managing them in an
increasingly rational way. This will contribute over the time to reducing the impact on
the environment whenever possible, improving farmers' farm management capacities
and ultimately their livelihood.
4.4. Recommendations on Good Growth Plan Management

The field experience obtained with FRIJOLNICA™ shows that the assessment by the
company of all alliances or partnerships it needs to support Syngenta’s local
capacities in different areas other than commercial would be an important step
to bring the smallholder program forward. By doing this, Syngenta local
representatives would have a toolkit to decide which program activities they should
conduct on their own, and which ones can be leveraged by skilled partners in different
areas such as ecology, training, credit, etc. This analysis could be conducted alongside
local representatives at the very beginning of each program that encompasses Good
Growth Plan commitments, which would be in some fashion tighten to the local
commercial goals in order to have a closer accountability specially in social and
environmental activities.
22