Agriculture: Twenty Years from Now...

Following is a summary of my remarks in an “Agri Panel” at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit earlier today, in response to the question, “What do you think will be game-changing about how we think about agriculture, twenty years from now?”

Soon after the panel moderator sent me this very interesting question a couple of days ago, the first thing I did was to post this question on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to crowdsource thoughts from my friends. There were nearly two hundred unique responses! They added up to twenty pages of text, without counting the number of pages in the links I received. Overwhelming, isn’t it?

All I am doing now is to simply synthesize those inputs and share with you J

The future of any system is shaped the current aspirations of the key stakeholders. Let’s take a look at the aspirations of the consumers, producers and the society at large…

Consumers want sufficient quantity of food (because we would be nearly nine billion by then, and on average richer than today), that is tasty (although, a friend did say in lighter vein, “since we will have nano-bots in our blood streams, and since our memories could be uploaded on to cloud, maybe we don’t need food and therefore no agriculture; we probably just need some electricity, or batteries, or just a few hours of exposure to sun ;-), is safe (you are all consumers here, don’t you agree that harmful chemicals in food is your topmost concern?), nutritious (scientists say that most of the world is suffering from invisible hunger), and all of these at reasonable prices!     

Farmers want higher incomes (as you know, per capita income of farmers around the world, especially in emerging economies, is far lower than the general per capita) with lower risk (weather and disease related production risks, price volatility). Their labour deserves more dignity (as it is, hardly any youth from the next generation wants to be a farmer) and they deserve better quality life (as in, the conveniences and comforts that are common in urban settings).  

Society at large would like agriculture to conserve natural resources (water and top soil, for example) and where possible, actually renew them. Agriculture needs to be resilient to climate change (the summer rains and warm winters, extreme climate episodes like heavy downpours on one hand and droughts on the other, etc), and again, where possible, positively impact climate change (sequester carbon, minimize greenhouse gas emissions etc).

An interplay of these different - at times conflicting - aspirations gives rise to three distinct scenarios, all of which will co-exist in twenty years. Let me label them: Farms as Factories, Homes as Farms, and Back to Basics!

Farms as Factories: By using the metaphor of factories, all I am saying is that the consistent quality of output will be produced, crop after crop, by leveraging the evolving technologies – both farming (like seed, nutrients, farm-equipment, agronomy practices etc) and digital (IoT, block chain, hyper-spectral imaging, GPS / GIS etc). A friend called them, “hardware, software, and liveware”). Another friend went to the extent of visualising a self-managing seed! These seeds will analyse the experienced conditions like soil, weather, water etc and invoke the necessary embedded features that would maximize the yield and quality. This may sound like fantasy today, but those of you who are familiar with experiments on seeds with multiple layers of coating in the past may very well say this could be a reality in twenty years!

Homes as Farms: I am sure, you have heard of vertical farming, balcony farming, kitchen gardens and such other names. Once supply chains are established to supply DIY-type mini production units, seeds, nutrients etc to the households, this phenomenon will expand more rapidly. This food is safe without any doubt in the consumer mind, and zero carbon miles! Business Models are also in the works for another kind of service. If you are not adventurous enough to grow crops in your backyard yourself, you can simply let out the space to Service Providers who can grow crops on a BOO model. Besides experts growing the crops in this model, a colony-level kitchen garden is more optimal than a household level garden. And a third model, which is not a ‘home-as-farm’ strictly speaking, is a partnership between a group of, say, five thousand, consumers and a community of, say, five hundred farmers. I know of several such partnerships across cities, built as WhatsApp Groups integrating even the e-commerce functionality.       

Back to Basics: Much of today’s ills of agriculture are due to chemical-intensive mono-cropping paradigm. A more sustainable future scenario would be an integrated farming system consisting of polyculture, permaculture, organic compost, bee-keeping, animal husbandry, renewable energy. In fact, I already see some farms where solar energy brings larger revenue than the conventional crops.  

As the panel went forward, there were other questions, but for now I am wrapping up this post without covering them.

As always, comments are most welcome J This is a live and lively topic! 

Nuances of the Agricultural Value Chains in India

Earlier this week, I gave a talk on the subject in a Workshop of Development Professionals. One of the participants prepared this summary:

Drawing upon his extensive experience of setting up and managing businesses based on value chains in agricultural commodities, Sivakumar took off from where the previous speaker left.  He said that he would reconcile the two seemingly conflicting points of views brought up in the previous session. On one hand, farmers as well as consumers feel that the intermediaries in the value chain are getting all the cream at their expense. The other was the large body of research which says that there is no evidence to conclude that middlemen in any specific commodity sector are making any more returns than justified by the value they add through capital they invest, the costs they incur and the risks they take. Once he had done that, he said, he would propose a sort of “tool kit” that the participants could use to address the inefficiencies in the value chains.

He said that the situation in India was characterized by small ticket size, large geographic dispersion, and lack of homogeneity on both the producer and the consumer end. To reach the agri produce to appropriate buyers located elsewhere, seeking products at different times, and in different form, required the middlemen to discover mechanisms such as larger than required risk cover, substituting skills for instruments and local knowledge for things like credit rating or quality testing or bank reach. They then instituted less than "global optimal" solutions. The research on market efficiency in whichever commodity focussed on "local" connections between two subsequent legs of a value chain and these were competitively shaped leading to the conclusion about market efficiency. Yet, from the point of view of global marketplace, Indian value chains were very inefficient since the summation of local optimal efficiencies did not add up to a global optimum for the whole value chain because of the non-value adding costs and unwarranted risks. This explained the simultaneous existence of "efficient markets" as tested by economists at micro level with gross inefficiencies in aggregate.

The adverse impact of the inefficiency – in terms of higher costs and risks – have been pushed to the weakest link in the chain, namely, the small farmer! As a result, the producer’s share of a consumer rupee remained low. Also, neither the full market opportunity from the evolving consumer preferences, nor the full production potential of India’s rich agro-climatic conditions have been realised.   

He therefore suggested that any work to improve the lot of small farmers cannot be a “point” solution; interventions are needed to improve efficiencies of the value chains as a whole, by transferring the costs and the risks to the most capable players along the chain.

Citing his own experience in setting up ITC e-Choupals, he laid out an approach to build the "tool kit". He then talked of two points that move along the value chain: the first is related to how much a producer would be willing to go down the value chain to reach out to the consumer and the other as to how much a consumer would be willing to go up towards production side. For the former, he talked of producers willing to push their “value offer points” by reaching out to the consumers in terms of vendor managed inventory. For the latter, he talked of contract farming as an illustration of consumer extending the “order penetration point” up the stream in the value chain.

By studying what he called the “transaction velocity” metrics, he said it would be possible to identify the non-value adding transactions in a value chain and then eliminate them through suitable interventions. ITC e-Choupals, for example, eliminated the physical movement of goods from farmers to APMC and then from there to the factories through competitive price discovery at farmer’s doorstep. Through different business models, ITC reaches out to 70000 villages in 220 districts across 16 states of the country giving them a competitive edge in sourcing.

Next he talked of “identity preservation” of the product along the value chain to mix & match the heterogeneity of production to cater to the heterogeneity in demand. Giving an example, he said there were 16 major wheat types grown in the country and 7 major atta types preferred by the consumers in different regions of the country. By setting up suitable sourcing, storage, and movement systems – both physical and information flow – to ensure that right wheat went to right mills and the right atta to market, ITC could capture and retain a huge market share in the Rs 5000 cr branded atta market.

Third he talked of “intensity of information” embedded in the products and using it for the purpose of deriving extra value for the producers. This comprised things like organic produce, responsible produce, IPM produced stuff etc. for which some segments of consumers are willing to pay more if there is evidence of the claim of the produce being what it claims to be.

Fourth he talked about moving from backyard production to collective production systems, wherever “mass production to production by masses” ratios are favourable. He gave the example of small animal holders coming together for collective dairy farming.

He strongly recommended that it would be more productive for new entrants as well – irrespective of their size of operations – to start thinking in terms of steps to move towards a “global optimum” in their value chains rather than either engaging in a zero sum game of deriving more value by reducing someone else's earning or by competing within the existing system alone.    

Livelihoods Promotion: Quest for Scale

In spite of the creditable growth of the Indian economy over the last two decades, the proportion of rural population living in poverty is still unacceptably high. While many models have successfully supported the livelihoods of the poor, very few have achieved the desired scale.

In this backdrop, 'Quest for Scale' was chosen as the theme of one of the Panels in the 2013 edition of the Livelihoods India Conference.

Dr Rajesh Tandon of the Society for Participatory Researchin Asia, Mr Brij Mohan of ACCESS Development Services, and Dr Subhashish Gangopadhyay of India Development Foundation and I were the Panelists in this session, moderated by Dr Sankar Datta of Azim PremjiUniversity. 

I argued that the default model chosen by most organisations for 'Scaling Up' is 'Spreading Wide'. This involves codifying the solution that worked, and then executing that code in new geographies. This would work so long as the new context is similar to the one where the solution worked in the first instance. And the organisation must have capacity to manage scale, be it the management bandwidth or the quality of execution. 

For example, if a Microfinance Organisation perfected the process of social mobilisation, risk assessment of the borrowers, efficiency of cash disbursements as well as collections etc, the same process can be successfully replicated in a different geography, unless the socio-cultural or livelihoods context is quite different.

In many cases, the scale reduces the 'Unit Costs', but in several cases, the scale can raise the management costs disproportionately. One must be cognizant of these issues also before 'Spreading Wide'. 

If the new context is very different, the original solution won't work; and if the organisation lacks capacity to manage scale, the consequences can be disastrous.

There are more ways to scale than Spreading Wide. Depending on the 'transferability of the solution' and the 'capacity of the organisation', one can choose from any of the four other Scaling Models.

2.       Scaling (or Mining) Deep: This involves bringing more products and services to serve the other current needs of the existing customers. If the infrastructure and the relationships built to deliver the original solution can be converted into a platform, it can facilitate access to other relevant offerings from third parties, who otherwise find it difficult to reach out to these customers. Continuing with the same example of Microfinance Organisation, Mining Deep model could go beyond lending and bring complementary solutions such as Capacity Building, Risk Management, Access to Quality Inputs, or Linking to Output Markets.

3.       Scaling (or Evolving) Along: This involves adapting products and services to serve the evolving needs of the existing customers, as time goes by. For example, as the incomes of the current borrowers improve, or as they reach different age bracket, their borrowing needs would change. A successful push-cart vendor, selling vegetables, may like to borrow ten times as much amount and set up a Grocery Store. This might mean a completely redesigned process compared to the process used for the earlier loan size. This is an often ignored, but smart, scaling opportunity.

4.       Scaling (or Stepping) Out: This involves adapting the solution to a completely new value chain. For example, the business model that worked for building an inclusive agricultural supply chain, could very well be adapted for skilling human resources for the employment market. While the Mining Deep model works wherever morphing into platform is feasible, this model can be explored where value chains are somewhat similar.

5.       Scaling (or Multiplying) Through: This is like the conventional franchising model. The code is handed over to a franchisee or a licensee for execution. One can spread wide, scale along or out, using this model. If  the organisation would like to retain control on the franchisee, there is a need to find a 'stickiness' factor, eg. shared services at low cost riding on the scale of multiple franchisees (accounts management, quality audit, training, legal services etc).

Thus, in my view, the foremost question in the quest for scale is "which model of scaling is right for me?"

Will the new CSR mandate be a game changer?

As you may know, the new Companies Act of India mandates that companies of a certain size and profitability must spend at least 2% of their net profits on Social Responsibility activities (See Section 135 on Page 80 of the Act)

I was a panelist at the 'CII National Summit on CSR' in Delhi held on 30th September 2013. These were my opening remarks in response to the question posed to my panel, "Will the new CSR mandate be a game changer?"

The 2% CSR spend is estimated at about Rs 20,000 Crores. This money is less than what Government spends in five days, considering the annual expenditure budget of Government is some Rs 17 Lakh Crores. Subsidies alone, out of this total amount, exceed Rs 250,000 Crores! Therefore the 2% CSR spend is not going to bring in the game-changing resources...

However, if Corporate India harnesses its 'innovation capacity' and leverages the 'power of partnerships' to solve India's social and environmental problems, I am sure it can change the game!

Instead of looking at the 2% amount as 'a philanthropy budget', if companies can innovatively embed CSR into their business strategies, larger problems can be solved.

This could be in the form of 'socially inclusive business models' where the capacities of low income suppliers and distributors can be strengthened to improve their productivity, market access, and bargaining power, while enhancing the competitiveness of the whole value chain in which the company is a part. Eg. ITC eChoupal.

On the environmental front, investing in renewable energy is a low hanging fruit, given our unreliable grid power, and the high cost of diesel-generated power. Innovation of higher order is required to build 'green supply chains' that regenerate the natural resources consumed in a business. Eg. ITC FarmForestry. 

Embedding CSR into business strategies would also ensure that the CSR spends do not get impacted in times of slowdown. Of course, this whole argument is not to rule out the need for philanthropic spends in cases of extreme distress.

Now I come to my second idea. I believe four types of partnerships could contribute to game-changing outcomes:

Partnerships with other Corporates operating in the same geography or working in the same domain can create joint projects and / or knowledge platforms for experience sharing.

Partnerships with CSOs / NfPs for social mobilisation and impact audits.

Partnerships with Communities themselves for gaining deeper insights while designing and executing projects. Also, Users Groups for democratising common property management.

Partnerships with Governments to create markets for trading "social credits" ala "carbon credits", and for aligning social subsidies to develop inclusive markets rather than distorting markets. This is besides the PPPs for building infrastructure that are already gaining traction.

While no one stopped Corporates from innovating and partnering to solve societal problems - indeed several companies have done so, successfully - the new CSR mandate hopefully inspires many companies to look at this as a game changing opportunity.

Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has ~ Margaret Mead