 Well good morning. Good morning. Can I encourage you to sit down and we'll get this session started. And do come forward if you can. My name is Camilla Tullman. I'm the director of IID. And I'm just going to give a short introduction to this session because it's about agriculture and land, which is very close to the heart of IID's work and my heart as well. It's focused on making agricultural investment work for small scale farmers. We're very lucky to have a great chair and panel for discussing these issues. Before I introduce our chair, I wanted to just give a brief introduction to IID's work on land and agricultural investment because as I said, it's been very much at the heart of my work and now to IID over the last 20 years. We've been looking at three main areas. One is monitoring large scale land acquisitions, what's known as the land grab, or the rush to acquire soils, water, forests in other countries, in other parts of the world. To try and find out what's actually happening in particular places, to try and get behind the headlines, and to try and understand the principal drivers of this rush to acquire resources elsewhere. The second main area has been working with lawyers and communities and governments to develop effective, low cost, accessible forms of land rights registration that can secure farmland, that can secure common property resources in terms of access, investment, ensuring returns for the long term. And the third main area of work has been examining and communicating alternative investment models and contracts that keep land in small holder farmers hands and get a better balance in market value chains between investors, between and producers. We're really keen to try and address the huge asymmetry in power between big companies, host governments, and local farmers. And I know we're going to hear a lot from the panel this morning on how that can work out in practice, what some of the positive examples are, what some of the pitfalls are. I'd now like to introduce our chair, Lindy Weissabander, who's a very well known and respected figure on the global agricultural stage. She's the CEO of the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, FANERPAN, based in South Africa. She's been a member of the Montpellier panel and is also on two of the boards of the CG IAR. Somehow, she also finds time to have a cattle farm of her own and she's extremely well qualified to run this panel. So, Lindy Weissabander, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kamila, for that warm introduction and the overview on the work you do with a lot of passion. It's a pleasure to be a chair and to be accompanied by eminent, eloquent panelists who are going to be engaging with us for the next one and a half hours. I'm excited because in this panel we have three women and one man. He's a lucky man indeed. But more interesting is that we've got a representative from Brazil, our host country, who is a great advocate on farming issues, particularly the family farms. We also have a representative from Africa who is a researcher in her own right and is passionate about forests and ecosystem services. And then big business is also here because the topic that we are on is making agricultural investments work for family farms and for small scale farmers. Without taking much time, I would like each of the panelists to just give us an overview of who they are, where they come from, what they do, and what it is that made them say yes to be a panelist for this exciting session. I'm going to start with the farmers because there's a farmer I'm passionate about, the people who feed us. Over to you, Alexandra. This is called CONTAG, which is the National Confederation of Workers in Agriculture. And also today we have the responsibility to organize the confederations of farmers, peasants and indigenous people in seven countries of the South America, and today I'm one of the farmers of the Amazon. And we accept this challenge of being here with you to discuss, mainly the main challenges that today are put into Brazilian family agriculture, which is mainly to look at how the dispute is in the field and mainly this model of development that is being worked on in the Brazilian field and which today greatly discriminates on the small Brazilian farmers. I'm called Sara Namirembe. I come from the World Agroforestry Center. I'm coordinating the program for proper rewards for environmental services in ICRAF. And my major interest here is to look at achieving environmental integrity in the whole quest for enhancing food production. So looking at ways that we can design land use in a way that can achieve both and also achieve fairness for small holder farmers. So I look forward to a very engaging discussion with fellow panelists and with you too. Thanks. Thank you, Sara. And over to you, Ruth. Yes, my name is Ruth Van Neck. I'm a producer of biofuels. We started seven years ago to produce biofuels based on the Jatrofa, a crop that grows in Africa. And we decided to grow Jatrofa, to buy the Jatrofa from small holders and not to set up a large-scale plantation. Making that decision helped us to have more possibilities to grow, but we will come back on that later on. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a field of who is up here. But there are three pillars to this conversation. There is sustainable intensification of agriculture, of course. There is investments, agricultural investments. But most important, there is the small-scale farmer, the family farms, as they will call them here in Brazil. I am keen to understand the typology. What do these family farms look like? Can we bring them to this room? Alexandra, can you take us to the places where you are farming, lift them up and bring them to this room and just describe what does it mean to be a family farmer? What is it that is in a family farm? We, farmers, don't like the term small-scale farming, as it is used in many parts of the world. Today we say that we advance to the recognition of the term family farming, because we understand when we say small-scale farming as if it were a pejorative term, because it depends on the size of the property, because sometimes I can have a hectare of property and, depending on the activity I develop, I can't be a small farmer. So, today in Brazil we identify by the size of the property. It is an important question to recognize who is a family farmer. But above all, it is a term that is used to recognize the family, who develops this activity with the family, and, above all, who works on the land, who takes away its sustenance, specifically from the management of the land. So, this is the differential when we say family farming. And today in Brazil there are more than 4.5 million properties that represent these Brazilian family farmers. Although we still have a great difficulty in identifying properties, one of the great problems is the lack of background regularization. We don't have the document of the land, so we estimate this number that I am saying of 4.5 million, these are the official data that we have, but they are far beyond that, but we know that today family farming represents and occupies less than 20% of the exploration of the Brazilian territory. So, it is a very important investment, and our main struggle is the identification of these two farmers that exist in Brazil, their role, and, above all, the fundamental role, which is this family farming, even if it is only 20% of the territory, it guarantees 70% of the food that goes to the table of all Brazilians, that is, the guarantee of national food security. Alessandro, tell us more. You say one, you don't like the name small, you want to be identified through the family, because the core business is to grow food to support the family. You own less than one hectare. What other assets, other than land, provide for the livelihoods in that family farm? Well, when we say that we don't like the term small agriculture and I said that we have already advanced a lot in this term, today, at the summit of the countries of the South America, we have advanced and today we recognize this term family farming, beyond Brazil. This term is used a lot, even from the creation of the special meeting of family farming in the South America, where we have advanced in these terms and in these debates the needs for family farming. So, beyond the question of land, of the identification of access, first of all, to produce is the access to land, we have discussed mainly the need for investment of public policies that make investment that is able to strengthen the production of family farming. One of the biggest challenges today of family farming, besides access to land, is the commercialization, the generation of income, and so that we can have quality of life for these families who survive in their properties, have the condition to manage their properties and also be able to, from start to finish, produce and also commercialize, dominate all the chain spaces of their production. So, for this investment in technologies and in several others, especially other public policies that come together, we call this concept of integral agricultural reform, because it is the access to land, but also with a package, we usually call it public policies that can guarantee both production and commercialization, all the needs of this family. Thank you very much for that overview on family farms. Over to you, Sarah. Dr. Namirembi, you are a researcher, but you come from Africa. We can now visualize what a family farm looks like. What does an African small-scale farm household look like in terms of assets, the number of people who depend on that household, the physical structures, and anything else that can help us understand what happens in Africa? Okay, in Africa, what we call a small-scale farm, and we hopefully, after today, will adopt this family farm term, because it sounds much better. But what we call a small-scale farm is usually between one quarter of a hectare, or even less than one quarter of a hectare, up to about two hectares. And this is supporting a family of, on average, six persons. We have these small-scale farms occurring adjacent to urban centers and others occurring in rural areas. Those adjacent to urban centers have good access to market and can also supplement their income from land with off-farm employment. Whereas those ones from the rural areas are less endowed in terms of infrastructure, and they produce for family consumption mainly. And in general, they are poorer than the small-scale farms in nearer to the urban centers. The farms usually produce food for the family from cultivation. They have some livestock farming. This is usually in the more humid areas we have a mixture of cultivation and livestock. And then in the more dry land areas, the farms are more oriented towards livestock. These farms produce the family needs in terms of food. They can also invest in some form of cash crop production. The environmental services that they may need, things from nature including water or firewood, are usually accessed from the commonly owned patches of land. And so usually these kinds of resources are not generated from the small-scale farm, but those resources are generated off-farm from some kind of commonly accessed or commonly owned public natural resource system. The land tenure is usually not documented or titled. So a lot of these farms are traditionally or locally known that they are owned by a certain person. But in the more formal system, this land tenure is not documented. So it's quite unclear from an outsider coming in how the land tenure works. But that's the whole setup of what a small-scale farm looks like in Africa. Thank you very much, Sarah, for that overview. One thing we are getting is that Africa likes the term family farms. So very soon we are going to replace small-scale to family farm. Thank you to Brazil. But one thing that's clear is that tenure rights between Africa and Brazil are still a challenge. But for Africa, I think the other thing is that women are the backbone in terms of the food production cycle from these small farms. Now, over to you, Ruth. We've heard from the farmers. We've heard from Africa. We've heard from Brazil. You are big business. What is your interest in Africa? What is your interest in Brazil? What is your interest in those developing, emerging economies? When I started to invest in Africa, it was in biofuels. And the biofuels business is very new. And for that reason, with an upcoming market, you always have to be very careful how to do that. Setting up large-scale plantations for something which is very unknown, there's not much information about it, it's very riskful. Because you are taking a lot of land away from the people, from the local population, and you're not sure what the outcome will be. So that was the reason for me to decide to work with small farmers. And you can do that in Africa. You can do that in Brazil, in Southern America. You cannot do that in Europe. Because Europe, there's no space for production like this, for biofuels, and also for large-scale food production. Because just the content is too small. So your attraction to Africa was the small-scale farms and your interest in improving the livelihoods of these farmers. If I can interrupt you, the initial step to go to Africa was to produce biofuels and that we needed the land. My first focus was not to focus on poverty reduction. That is something that came later on. Because we found out that the combination was very possible. Excellent. I think we get it out of the bag. Big business is in Africa to make business. And business is about profits. It's about win-win. It can be in Africa. It can be in Brazil. I want to ask the farmer, big business is going into the family farms, is going into the small-holder farms to make business. From your experience, are these fair deals? Are they win-win for the farmer and for the investor? I would like to bring, maybe before you answer, when you were talking about family farming, we have a lot in common. I think it's mainly family farming from Latin America, Brazilian family farming and African family farming. We have been discussing a lot about these common challenges. Exactly, because in Brazil, more than 50% of the poor are in the field. Poverty in Brazil has an address, as we usually say, and it locates more than 50% among family farmers in the field due to the absence of high investment. These are some of the points. It also unifies a lot our action. When we look at Africa and Brazil and Latin America, they are the two continents today that suffer a greater search for investment in land, for the fertility of our soil, for the availability of rain, for space, and also for the lack of a stronger regulation of our own legislation in our countries. So today, we would say that droughts are very common between the two continents and the needs, especially of the identification of the role of family farming and the role of business farming. How to reconcile these two interests is a great challenge. And today, we would say that in our experience, we are not very easy to meet. I think that, especially because of the difference of interests between the two sectors. So when you ask, sometimes this identification, the work has been fair? Generally, no. I think that for us, when we meet companies that are so concerned with this differential, they are not very easy to meet because while one has the interest of the market and of mainly earning profits on this market, there is a relationship with the market. The relationship of family farming with this different land of social inclusion is that our struggle is for the empowerment of these families so that they can also not only with the vision of great profits, but above all, the differential. That's why the numbers show that family farming generates four times more jobs in the same equity, depending on the production, sometimes explored by a mainly of the monoculture. So this is perhaps the great differential and not always this relationship is very fair for the difference of vision and objectives of exploration of this land. Thank you very much, Alexandra. For this sustainable development we're looking at the economic benefits, the social benefits and feeding the environment. And we've got a private sector investor who is working with his family farms, who is working particularly in Africa. His interest is to make a profit because it's business. But, Rude, what is the formula for making this sustainable development? Can the rural farmers really stand up and say yes to private sector investment, yes to big business, yes to jatropha production? Are they winning? There is always a kind of pressure if you're talking about large-scale agricultural activities. Very often you see the large-scale plantations and they can be very efficient. And that is always in competition with the smallholders because smallholders, small farmers are not that efficient right now. And that is the big competition between the smallholders who are trying to produce their food production or trying to produce feedstock for other things could be biofields, for example. If you have a large-scale production very often it's more efficient in logistics, in fertility, for the soil. It's more in control. And it is indeed a very difficult step to get those small farmers on the same level as the large-scale plantations. For me as an investor it should be not really an issue. Of course it is an issue because they are my suppliers but my price is based on what they provide on me. And if they are less effective their income is lower. And that is the reason for me that I want them to be very effective. We love your passion for these family farms for the small-scale farmers. But we are still trying to understand you have articulated the challenges of making them your supplier. They have diverse interests. They are not well-skilled and the infrastructure support around the family farms is minimum. But you have still chosen to go and do business with them. Can you tell us why not with big business? Why should you go through this pain? What we produce is biofuels. And biofuels is a different kind of business because it is very new. And that means there are a lot of things unknown about biofuels and what you see with large-scale plantations on biofuels you see that they all get bankrupt right now. The reason is they are unknown about Jatrofa. They started to grow Jatrofa. The productivity is negative and they have to stop. With Jatrofa as a side business if you are just growing Jatrofa as hatches around your land it protects your land and then you can harvest the seeds and sell them to a company like Delegate. It is a different approach. It is an additional income and additional effort. So that is a win for Jatrofa. But it only works for now. It only works with Jatrofa. I would like that it also would work with food production. So the Jatrofa you have introduced to the African small-scale farmers is providing you with oil with seeds. And seeds which you then process. But more important you are allowing the small-scale which they would not use for anything else. Before you answer I want to go to an expert. We have gotten the panel an African researcher who is an interest in forests who is interested in ecosystem services Sarah. Does this make sense? Are we able to reduce poverty in Africa by encouraging our farmers to partner with people like Ruth? I should also maybe put a provisor that in certain instances yes and the research is still not yet complete on these issues. So we also don't know much more than the private sector on how Jatrofa might work if we are going to focus on Jatrofa alone. But the little research that we have for regarding Jatrofa is the hypothesis was that it would go on marginal land. But it grows faster and quicker if it goes on less marginal land. And so it's beginning because of the income that's coming into the farmers. It's beginning to move from what they call marginal land into the land that should have been producing food. So as far as we know about Jatrofa but if I could use another example where Sugarcane did that for example in western Uganda where with more income, with more farm inputs coming in from the private sector onto the small farm, farmers actually completely replaced their food with Sugarcane production and when that factory could not buy their sugar anymore they actually became food deficient. So there can be a risk with that. The assumption that farmers will only use marginal land I think would be taken with a pinch of salt. I think what's interesting for me is that we admit that research is still working in progress in terms of particularly the Jatrofa but the beauty with private sector is that they are risk takers. They have gone in they are partnering with the disadvantaged and they are also learning by doing and they are hoping that the policy environment will meet them halfway. Can you just unpack for us the policy challenges that you are facing in your efforts to make sustainable investments through private sector partnering with small scale farmers? Just a minute, Sarah wants to unpack something. I'll come back to you. I think also the other issue that we need to understand from the private sector is this transfer of risk because there is the issue that that the farmers are taking on this I mean as much as the private sector is a risk taker there is also the risk of the farmer and the insurance systems of the farmers are usually vested in the social networks that they have and these social networks tend to get kind of disintegrated when they get into partnerships with private sector businesses so I think maybe something else we would like to hear is if the private sector could then compensate that kind of risk that is now exposing the exposing farmers too or can they share in the insurance process? Over to you there is the risk there are policy challenges what is private sector to cushion the small farmers from the risks that they face from the policy environment that is not creating a level ground for you to work. Let me start on the risk side what we do and that is indeed we are sharing the risk a little bit we invest in the factory we invest in infrastructure we are not investing in land that is the part which the farmers are doing and that also means that if Jatrofa is less effective and the farmer is investing in Jatrofa that means it could be in disinvestment that is why we always promote Jatrofa just to do it additionally don't reduce the amount of production of food because that is your first part of income you need it for your own living but you also need it as your income Jatrofa only should be an additional income so we always say don't use more than let's say 50% of your land that also makes that it is not possible for us to give a kind of insurance if Jatrofa is not successful because if we are suffering, the farmer is suffering if the farmer is suffering we are suffering also we have a common risk and a common profit if it is successful then we get the side of policy and that is something which is very difficult in Africa because we are depending on policies but there is not much policy development in Africa what we prefer to do is sell the oil just on the local market in Africa what happens right now is diesel is produced in Rotterdam is transported to Africa is sold there also the oil we are producing is first sent to Europe to the United States to produce and to transfer it into biofuels and of course that is ridiculous I would prefer to sell it on the local market the reason we are not doing it is because there is no policy we are not allowed to sell biofuels in Africa there is no policy about it so we don't know what happens if we start selling it right now we will be later on over 5 years do we have to pay whatever fees I don't know so that is the reason why we don't sell on the local market right now interesting you generate the products in Africa but you are not allowed to even create the market where the product is produced you are making more money outside the continent interesting we could make a better profit if you could sell it in the continent itself so policy challenge number one we hope you could make both better money but more important we hope you could make more money in the pockets of the farmers who are producing before I go over to Brazil roughly show us how much money are we talking about because we heard from Brazil that the biggest challenge is poverty we know that is for sure in Africa another challenge now we have got an investor coming into Africa growing introducing a crop for biofuel to make big money my interest is how much of that big money remains in the pocket of the producer the small farmer because food security is about one, producing the food two, accessing the food which means you have money to buy and making sure you have a decent livelihood how much money are we talking about on average pay yeah I can give you some insight about what the income for the farmers is we always said this is additional we cannot replace their income and farmer can make about 300 dollars a year on just over which makes that they can in rural environment they will double their income 300 dollars a year in my old life when I was 13 we worked on a maize farm and the maximum we got from our 1 hectare was 2 tons of maize and the current price is about 120 US dollars so they would normally make about 200 dollars a year so an additional 300 dollars would really make a difference to a small holder farmer it sounds small but my little mathematics says yes it would make a difference in Brazil since root is saying that in addition to 50 percent of the land being used for crops to feed the family they are asking for a small portion that they use for biofuels and they leave the farmer with 300 dollars more than they would have without roots investments right do you have similar cases in Brazil where you've got a big business coming to work with the family farm and making a difference by leaving more money in the pockets of the farmers do you have similar cases in Brazil where you've got a big business coming to work with the family farm even with the difficulties we still have technical assistance we take important steps in the last few years we still have a big farm when we see that more than 50 percent are still poor but I would say that it is very efficient to feed more than 70 percent of the food that goes to the table of the Brazilians now the difficulty is exactly that these politicians in the countries can look at this sector as a strategic sector and I think in this debate mainly regarding the diversification of production the relationship including agriculture we identify with this I think one of the big challenges has been how to diversify how the property can also have several sources of income now the big difficulty in this relationship when before this debate how this business relationship with the small farmers it is difficult because this relationship usually when it is the income of a property for production sometimes it can be fuel cellulose for cellulose plants like in Brazil we have a lot or several others in many cases sometimes a contract of 50 years our big concern that the day this land is returned to this farmer it will no longer have the condition to survive on it if it is returned this is also a doubt after 50 years it will not have the condition to continue because the way of working with so many insumes with so many technologies is not the same as the other farmer so this relationship often ends up being exploration now it can be a more sustainable relationship I think when we are in this debate one of the challenges we have especially discussing why? the same companies today why 7 companies dominate the market of the world meat for example why many the same company acts in several countries as the partner here is saying acts in Africa and commercializes in other places sometimes there is the absence of public policy also to strengthen local markets we also identify this we think that the exit of strengthening local markets for any production to have focus with the local market and today it is not what potentializes so we understand that this relationship needs to happen it needs the guarantee of sustainability we call it traceability of the production of family agriculture because if we look today for example Brazilian family agriculture is responsible for a significant example of milk Brazil is highly sustainable in milk production but the production of family agriculture disappears when it leaves the property and arrives in the dairy that it buys it disappears the contribution of family agriculture so we are today a challenge traceability of this production I think how family agriculture is contributing in the big chains even in the world market it is very significant in that sense but we already identify that 28% of what produces family agriculture is also part of Brazilian export so I think this relationship it will have sustainability mainly from the moment that this identification relationship happens in Brazil when you ask if we have similar experiences there is a challenge being built for example of biodiesel biodiesel in relation to family agriculture where we are also looking to try that the property of family agriculture also has biodiesel as an alternative to income but to empower the families themselves in a cooperative way so that they can dominate all the processes too and this is a great challenge so I think it is possible but not looking for local markets making the real contribution of the families so that they can empower themselves of these generated profits but what I liked is the issue of risk where you say you can diversify by different crops but by bringing in big business you are seeing that as a way of diversification because you are bringing in a cash crop that you wouldn't otherwise have a market for but now with the partnership you are seeing an opportunity but it has got to be a fair deal there is a component of research that you brought in we go into these deals for 50, 99 years and this is a family farm when you get it back after 50 years can we still call it a family farm has research looked into that have you done any modelling to project what would be the damage or benefit like your land to grow cash crops then three generations down the line your grandchildren want to grow cassava can they do it I think what I know about this is not the research coming from ICRAF but it's research that we did within Uganda when the president of Uganda was proposing to give away a portion of the forest to a large scale sugar cane producer and what we found that actually the long term impacts of using technological agriculture inputs on land causes land to be nonproductive in the longer term so some research has been done but I only have the data for Uganda I'm sure there is data out there for other places looking at the Uganda side and also looking at this sugar cane relationship between large scale producers and small scale farmers is that actually that land if the farmers become out growers then that land becomes non-useable at a later stage I think something else I also wanted to add to this discussion is the 300 dollars sounds very good if you just look at it as 300 dollars but we have to ask ourselves from whose perspective are we looking at this and at the farmers we rarely calculate their investment versus return so that is something that needs to be a kind of unpacked and then also there is the issue that we've been looking at this not necessarily for small scale farmers versus large scale farmers but also for environmental services where this kind of a similar relationship comes in where we have the larger players from the international market coming in to pay for environmental services at the small scale and again the question comes in like how do we set the price which then results into this 300 dollars or whatever it is and usually the setting of the price from our research is an issue really when you get what the buyer is willing to pay versus what the seller is willing to accept we found that actually many of the sellers don't get the time to think through their opportunity costs when they're naming their price and a lot of the times they tend to undersell themselves so the framing of the contracts should actually allow for review to allow the farmers to come up with these kinds of agreements such that they can renegotiate the 300 dollars or whatever the profit would be Thank you very much Sarah I think one thing that's coming out clear is the issue of trust when you are dealing with family farms small scale farms and you are bringing a big player to partner with them there is an element of mistrust in terms of information the fine print in these contracts because when I get the 300 dollars I jump and celebrate and say this is double but is it the fair deal is it really what I got into or that's what I was made to understand is the best value for my output how do you ensure transparency and flexibility to make sure you can go back to the drawing board should you have a windfall of money what we it took several years before we had settled our price actually when we started our business our price was much lower and the farmers didn't accept it or they only produced small amounts and we had to raise the price in time and at a certain moment we found out that farmers get more to produce the tropha first and that's also something that we always see farmers start growing the trophas mostly it's only a small amount they only have one row of hatches and at a certain moment you reach a level and the trust that they say okay this is interesting we sold the tropha seeds to you for two years and we have trust in the company and the organization and then they start to increase the production and that's also why we it took so many years before we became successful to build up a trust with the farmers takes a long time and now we are active for seven years you see that now at once we see a very steep grow of supply from the farmers and the reason for it is that we are getting more and more well known under the farmers so we have received, reached that trust and the reason why we didn't have the trust in the beginning is that a lot of things happened before we arrived at the farm place a lot of farmers lost a lot of money to better crops and couldn't sell sell it finally Ladies and gentlemen I'm sure you can see from this panel small scale farmers family farms need big business they are saying it's not a dirty word but it's got to be a fair deal there are challenges in the policy front there are challenges in the governance process issues of transparency and trust but this is something that the farmers are welcoming with open arms I would like to turn over to you and find out from this debate are there any burning burning questions and issues that you would want to contribute so that we can bring your views to this debate we are midway there is plenty of time but I just thought I should pause now and open up for your engagement whilst you are thinking through your questions you can see a couple of hands Alessandra is dying to say something just to top you up with more information we are not yet finalizing I just want the audience to be part of this dialogue and will still continue I would like to ask you is this really necessary this relationship and I would like to even provoke the debate what we have talked through our organizations both here in Brazil through the contact of other organizations that work in the field in Latin America with the other networks that we have worked also partnership in Africa to make a conclusion that we need to ask ourselves if we really need these investments to bring a production that I don't know how to deal with that I don't know how to plant that I am dependent on technical assistance that I am dependent on the insumes that I am dependent on the whole mechanism of this market chain where the price of this product was discussed in several places in the world depending on the product what is the need that I have to do this in my own as a farmer as a director we have reflected this and our conclusion in Brazil we have invested much more in the discussion with our farmers in experiences that strengthen the local market strengthen what I already have what I produce what I know how to deal with what I know how to work and what can in fact make a big difference one of his examples for example why not explore the first market that I have closer to my home that is the school that is where the national food program in Brazil came from and has made a big difference because it already produces make the school consume healthy food and that comes from the property close to your home this relationship so I think we need this question I think that as alternatives they can be sought but for us is mainly to strengthen alternatives production, consumption that can be there and growing for other alternatives but above all I think this is the way for us safer it's all to do with transparency the closer the markets the more eyes we can have in understanding what the market forces are what the returns on our investment are and how we can benefit and reduce poverty another issue is the relationship to have some dignity we need to respect that I'm bringing the land don't make me dependent by making me depend on you for the inputs depend on you for the information depend on you for the market there's got to be an element of empowerment so that in this partnership between family farms and big business you leave the family farm better of capacitated to do things better rather than be dependent I saw a couple of questions out there so please can we have the mics say hello I'll go row by row