Increasing Farming Capacity in Nicaragua

(The project description is drawn from Nadim Matta, our organization’s founder,’s chapter ‘Unleashing capacity in developing countries’ from Robert Schaffer’s book about the RE!NSTITUTE approach. Published by Jossey-Bass, September 2005.)

It began as a large-scale World Bank project aimed at increasing the productivity of 120,000 Nicaraguan farmers in the country by 30%, within 16 years. The project seemed to have all the right elements built into it: strengthening quasi-government institutions; directing research on farmer productivity; stimulating a private sector market for the provision of technical advice to farmers; building an information system to link research & development efforts with farmer needs; and others. 

Despite each project component being pursued by a diligent and committed team, two years into the effort, there was little visible impact on farmers. The project activities were mostly preparatory—geared to getting the systems, processes, and institutions in place. The struggle to create meaningful impact despite having a strategy in place soon caught the Minister of Agriculture’s attention. It was also on the mind of Norman Piccioni, the World Bank team leader in charge of the project.
 

Piccioni had the uneasy feeling that apart from himself and the newly appointed Minister, no one working on the project was losing sleep over the fact that no farmers had yet been touched by the effort.

Piccioni decided that he could not afford to wait. He knew that all the activities that had been mapped out in the 16-year project were necessary for achieving the hoped-for outcomes, but without some near-term impact he felt that the long-term project was at risk. There were already some indications that the Minister might pull the plug on it. Piccioni was also increasingly concerned that without some change, all the activities and the good intentions behind them might not get translated into actual results.
 

Piccioni assembled all the stakeholders involved in the effort and shared with them the idea of mobilizing cross-functional teams and challenging them to achieve real results that would have an actual impact on farmers in the following 100 Days.

The first workshop in the country, attended by 30 representatives from the various institutions—the “extended leadership group”—got off to a rocky start. The first agenda item was a discussion of the implementation risks and challenges, and the participants grabbed the opportunity to put on the table their frustrations about each other and about the development agencies that were funding the project. The idea of 100-day initiatives was dismissed as a band-aid and also as unfeasible given the lack of basic capacity.

By the end of the two-day workshop, however, participants had developed some willingness to experiment with a few 100-Day initiatives, each aimed at one area of strategic importance for the agricultural sector such as pig farming, dairy production, and corn feed development.

The second workshop followed three-weeks later and it brought together five teams, each charged with developing a goal and a work plan targeting a specific area of focus. There was a seismic shift in the energy and enthusiasm of the participants by the end of the second workshop.

The implementation cycle proceeded over the next 100 Days with frequent reviews by the leadership group. The 100-Day Challenge generated the impact challenge organizers and participants both sought. 

• One cooperative in the Leon municipality of Nicaragua tripled the sale of milk produced by 60 farmers by focusing on improved quality and better marketing.

• A group of 30 farmers increased pig weight by 30% using enhanced, protein-enriched corn (leveraging existing technology).

At one level, the Nicaragua experience was about improving the productivity of pig and cow farmers. At a more profound level, it was about a transformation in the way people in the agricultural sector work together to support goals they are committed to.
 

Eighteen months after this initial intervention the momentum continues, with waves of projects infusing the Agricultural Sector with results and enthusiasm, and releasing untapped implementation capacity. As of April 2004, 40 (formerly) “Rapid-Results Initiatives” had been completed. Here are a few samples of the additional 100-day results that were achieved:

• By increasing value-adding steps to the selling process, 27 small-scale producers were able to increase the selling price of their corn, chilote and pepián produce by 15% in 120 days. 

• To scale up, the new process (which included improved packaging and labeling and better retail targeting) is being taught in 15 rural schools in five local regions

• In two communities, local leaders joined forces with the mayors, civil organizations, the National Army, and the National Forest Institute and they reduced illegal traffic in forest products by 60%. Another community took up a similar goal and achieved an 80% reduction in 100 days.

Beyond unleashing leadership potential, the Nicaragua experience with RE!NSTITUTE demonstrated another shift that often eludes development efforts—the shift from victim-hood to empowerment. At the initial workshop described above, the resistance to the idea of 100-day results goals reflected participants’ lack of confidence that they could actually achieve the results. Comments like these characterized the mood:

“We can’t even communicate with each other via email. Let’s deal with that first before we talk about real results in 100 days.”

“You do not understand. It takes a hundred days here to agree on a goal.”
 

“We are doing all we can. I am doing my part, and I am sure everyone else is doing their part. It takes time.”

Contrast this mind-set with that of one of the RE!NSTITUTE team members, speaking at the concluding workshop and describing how he was personally influenced by this effort:

"I am the son of a cattle rancher. My father died when I was young, and I have been raising cows the way he taught me. For a long time, other members of the cooperative and I were lucky to make ends meet with what we were able to sell. Then one day this gentleman from the Ministry's extension agency came and told me about this initiative and invited me to be a team member. I participated in the workshop where we developed our goal and plan. Then we asked a representative from the private sector dairy exporter to join the team. And one day, this engineer sitting right there in the back of the room, came to my farm and taught me how to ensure the cleanliness of the milk we produce. During the past 100 days, we tripled the milk quantity that we sell. Now we have a safety margin of cash over and above what we need. With the confidence we gained, we went to the Bank and borrowed 100,000 cordobas, collateralized with pasture land, and we will be building a pasteurizing facility. This is how this initiative impacted my well-being.”

Where does empowerment come from? In the case of Nicaragua, it emerged as the right teams got into action, challenged by their peers to achieve unusual results, and committed to specific 100-day goals that they set for themselves. The best evidence of this spirit is the fact that when the funding ran out, and the outside consultants left, the local leadership assumed full responsibility and kept the process moving.

World Bank

Nicaragua: responding to the needs of farmers using agricultural technology, knowledge and innovation systems