Our Position on 2KR & the Governmental 2KR Mission for Investigation

Dear Partners,

There are the points regarding I) what we think the Japanese agricultural cooperation should be, and II) what we would like the current mission to investigate. In respect of II) of course, these are not all the points for investigation. Yet, if the mission cannot cover these points at least, then it can be said that this mission fails to make an investigation sufficient for the drastic review of the Japanese Grant Aid for Food Increase (known as 2KR). For your information, we submitted II) to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in advance for the dispatch of their mission.

We, the 2KR Monitoring Net, believe that:

1. The Government of Japan should listen carefully to the actual producers, dwellers, civil organizations, and all the other concerned agencies/agents regarding to learn the situation and the local efforts of the independent and sustainable food production.
2. Based on these interviews, the Government of Japan should have regular consultations with the local actors on what kind of support they can do to assist such local efforts, on the possibilities of effective cooperation/assistance that can fit into the local needs and adjust the local change.
3. The Government of Japan should carry out a flexible and constant assistance respecting the field efforts of local food production.
4. The Government of Japan should switch from "aid" to "cooperation" in order to have the huge amount of money in ways that back up the grassroots efforts, rather than blocking.

In order to achieve these,

1. We should facilitate further exchange, mutual understanding and collaboration among the civil societies of South and Japan. Especially Japanese people should take their responsibilities to deal with the obsolete pesticide problems created by their tax money.
2. We are demanding a drastic review of the Japanese agricultural cooperation and a complete investigation of all the 2KR recipient countries.
3. We are demanding the participation of the field producers and civil organizations in recipient countries as well as the Japanese civil society in this review process. Also we are appealing for the agricultural cooperation that fully takes into account the actual conditions and the diversity of each target country/area.

Our concern is that the Government of Japan tries to "improve" the 2KR scheme, ignoring all these aforementioned efforts at various levels: they are trying to conduct a cosmetic reform, ruining the opportunity of the review and the change. The mere provision of materials is far from satisfactory. The current 2KR system allows only Japanese bidders in the procurement of materials whose prices are almost 3 times higher than normal prices. The end users have to purchase these materials in order to utilize them for food production. We not only question the effectiveness of this system worth the huge amount of money, but also think that there is an alternative.

Based on our aforementioned concepts, we would like to suggest the current 2KR missions consider the following points:

The Purposes of the Investigation

• The current mission is to be conducted based on the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Plan of Action which clearly refers to "the drastic review of the 2KR including its abolition". Thus, the purpose of the investigation is to clarify all the problems of the 2KR aid-scheme.
• In other words, this investigation should not be the one to explore the possibility of maintaining the 2KR scheme with some revisions.
• Therefore, the mission should aim at rethinking whether the 2KR scheme, which concentrated only on the provision of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and agricultural machinery, is appropriate as an agricultural assistance, and also if the system of the counter(part) fund is suitable, from the bottom up.

The Points to Investigate

1) Regarding the marketing/distribution/sales of the 2KR materials

• When did the 2KR materials land? Through which route were the 2KR materials delivered to the end users? How many of which farmers from which groups/classes in which areas received the 2KR materials? Are those receivers peasants, commercial farmers, companies, or cooperatives?
• Through which process does the recipient government decide the target areas to distribute the 2KR materials? If it is based on the distribution plan with the national initiative, can citizens oppose to or can request the review of the plan? Is this type of requests/opposition legally secured?
• Are there any stocks of the 2KR materials that have not been sold nor distributed at the marketing phase? If any, how much and where?
• If the 2KR materials are sold, how much are the retail prices? Are they lower/higher than the market prices of the same products? What kind of impacts do the 2KR materials have on the local market of those products?
• How much is the share of each 2KR product (pesticides, chemical fertilizers and agricultural machinery) in the national consumption of the recipient country? Is the remaining share of the consumption filled by the commercial-based import or by the foreign assistance? If any foreign assistance besides the 2KR, how do/es the donor/s involve in the supply of materials? What kind of assistance scheme are those?
• In the case that the 2KR materials are purchased, what kind of farmers (in terms of income level, land ownership, etc.) are the end users? Can the small scale farmers who are the original target of the 2KR scheme in fact afford to purchase those materials?
• In the case that the 2KR materials are purchase, do the end users purchase those materials with their own funds or credits? If they buy the 2KR materials with credits, who are the lenders, what kind of the conditions are applied to the borrowers, and are their loans repaid smoothly? Is not there any problem of defaulted credits due to the crop failures resulting from the bad weathers?
• In the case that the 2KR materials are distributed at free of charge, how does Japanese government consider about the dependency problems? Can the 2KR scheme be an assistance to support the independence of the local farmers in the recipient countries?Ê Or does it possibly prevent the farmers from independence rather than supporting?
• What kind of technical instructions are offered to the end users regarding the use of the 2KR materials by whom if any?
• The farmers under poverty usually live in remote areas where access to the markets is in extreme difficulties. Can the supply of the 2KR materials based on the collection of the counter fund (through the sales by tender) reach to those farmers?
• What are the targeted crops of the 2KR materials? Are the materials in fact used for the intended purposes or used for export/cash crops? In the case that the materials are used for the production of export/cash crops, what is the portion of the 2KR materials used for the production of which crops?

2) Regarding the counter fund

• What is the situation of accumulating the counter fund of the 2KR? Are there any unclear points/issues in accounting? If there is not any reserve funds, what are the causes of it? If the explanation of the recipient government for it is that it is because they distributed the materials for free, are there any proof? If the counter fund is appropriately accumulated, how does the recipient government spend it?
• Is the system of this counter fund an appropriate policy when taking into account the conditions/situations of the recipient country?

3) Regarding agricultural machinery

• What kind of machinery is supplied to which class/size of farmers? Aren't the farmers who need the large machinery large scale?
• Is there any provision of agricultural tools that can be easily used by peasants especially females within the 2KR scheme?
• Why doesn't the Japanese government support the local production of simple agricultural tools within the recipient country?
• Since the provided agricultural machinery through the 2KR scheme is large sized, it is hardly imagined that the machines are owned by individuals, but rather owned by a group which complicates the form of ownership. In this case, who are the owners of those provided materials? How do they organize the use and the maintenance of the materials? What kind of social impacts did the provision of large agricultural machinery have? Were such impacts considered in advance? What kind of the follow-up is carried out for these impacts?
• How are spare parts supplied? Are they available in local markets? If so, are their prices reasonable (how much are they)? Who repairs and maintains the parts and the machinery?

4) Regarding chemical fertilizers

• Fertilizers are produced within Africa i.e., Burkina Faso, Cote dÕIvoire, Mauritius, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Why can't Japan revitalize the local African economies utilizing the local products and facilitating the circulation of those products within the economies, rather than bringing the product from outside at high costs?
• Does the 2KR scheme block the local production of fertilizers at competitive prices and qualities in the recipient and its neighboring countries? Does it block the development of private fertilizer marketing?
• It is often observed that peasants produce cash crops and subsistence crops separately and that production inputs are often used for the former crops. How is the situation of the actual production sites with the provision of the 2KR materials?
• What kind of instructions are made for farmers to select and apply the appropriate amount of the appropriate type of fertilizers with the suitable means under the suitable condition of land?
• The application of fertilizers require water. In rain-fed areas, do the 2KR fertilizers make the production more difficult by increasing the requirement of water for the production? Also it is likely that farmers need to purchase seeds due to the fertilizer oxidized. How is the local response to this problem if any?
• Is there any negative effects (environmental degradation and diseases) resulting from the overuse/misuse of chemical fertilizers? Does the 2KR scheme prevent the sustainable technology/techniques to improve soil fertility through the utilization of the local resources from spreading out?

5) Regarding agriculture

• Is there any legal regulation/institution to deal with the disposal/management of pesticides? Is there any facility to dispose obsolete pesticides? If not, how does the government dispose obsolete pesticides and who bear the costs? Is there any training system that instruct farmers how to use pesticides appropriately? Overall, does the recipient country have the valid system under which they can prevent, monitor, manage and dispose obsolete pesticides safely?
• What is the condition of obsolete pesticides in the recipient country? What are the results of the soil and water tests in the areas where the stockpiles of obsolete pesticides are observed?
• How much are the obsolete pesticides and the contaminated materials in which areas? Among those, what is the portion of the ones supplied by Japan? What is the fundamental reason which made the aided pesticides unused and obsolete (the mission should review this point including the responsibilities of the donor)?
• What are the countermeasures planned by the recipient country, the donors, and NGOs?
• The aided pesticides are often used as the national pest control. Yet, the current trend of the pest control is the development of early warning systems and prevention, rather than stocking piles of pesticides which leads to the problems of obsolete pesticides. Why doesn't the Japanese government assist such development of the early warning system rather than sending piles of pesticides?
• Pesticides tend to use more for the production of cash/export crops such as cotton, cashew nuts and coffee. How much of the 2KR pesticides are in fact used for the production of the food crops produced by whom?
• What is the current condition of the outbreak of the pests resistant to pesticides? Is there any research/advocacy institute regarding the use of pesticides which does not take into account that using the specific types of pesticides possibly create the outbreak of the pests resistant to those pesticides?
• How far does IPM promotion that does not solely rely on the heavy use of pesticides and thus results in the prevention of obsolete pesticides go? Does the Japanese pesticide assistance block that progress? How can Japan support such progress?

END