Strategic area
Agriculture and Nutrition
Better producer returns and dependable food systems
THESO’s proposed agricultural approach would test whether an investment improves producer returns and household access to safe, varied food under local conditions. It would examine seed, soil, water, pest control, harvest handling and markets together with recurrent costs, rather than treating higher output or more equipment as sufficient evidence of benefit.
Proposed approach
Test viable production options
Researchers, extension services, producers and buyers would identify the constraint, then compare affordable practices through locally supervised trials. Protected cultivation would require lawful land, measured water, reliable power and credible demand; simpler alternatives would be appraised on equivalent assumptions. Unsuccessful trials would remain in the evidence record.
Build accountable producer organisations
Shared storage, irrigation or buyer access would require documented member demand and an affordable service model. Agreements would disclose fees, ownership, booking rights, maintenance and conflicts. Smaller producers, tenants, women and mobile households would retain meaningful participation and lawful control over production choices.
Improve enterprises through verified operations
Enterprise compacts would address measured weaknesses in quality, safety, resource use and continuity. Managers would retain operating decisions; independent reviewers would test records against physical capacity and consenting worker evidence. Public findings would be limited to the activity and period examined, with uncertainty and unresolved observations retained.
Protect stored grain and producer settlement
Grain transfers would require lawful custody, clear ownership, inspection and release rights, calibrated scales, moisture tests and itemised settlement terms. Inventory would reconcile receipts, releases and closing stock. Disputed quantities, loss responsibility and payment dates would remain visible; unresolved custody failure would stop new deposits while existing entitlements are protected.
Connect markets with household nutrition
Processing and storage would require viable demand, seasonal supply, safe handling, working capital and affordable maintenance. Appraisal would examine effects on buyers, workers, consumers, childcare and household food production. Practical food knowledge would reflect local diets; clinical nutrition decisions would remain with authorised health professionals.
Intended outcomes
Planned outcomes are higher real net producer margins per hectare and lower dry-matter storage losses across comparable cycles. Measurement would retain household labour, replacement costs, fees, delayed payments, safety rejects and producer exits. More harvest or sales would not automatically establish better welfare or self-sustaining enterprises.
Protection and access
Disputed land would remain outside capital works until lawful resolution. Projects would protect existing water users, household food access, worker safety and women’s control over payments. Assurance costs and producer fees would be disclosed; separate consent and affordability assessment would precede credit secured against produce.
Long term direction
The long-term objective is a diversified food economy supported by national institutions and viable producers. Expansion would require comparable-season margins, reliable buyer payments and continued finance for extension, research, quality control and logistics. Weather, market concentration and land disputes would qualify findings.
Who would do what
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Producers and producer organisations | Choose crops and participation, govern shared assets and retain accessible accounts and challenge routes. |
| Qualified research, extension, enterprise and warehouse partners | Conduct trials and instruction, operate assets, protect food quality, preserve grain custody and honour settlement terms. |
| Public authorities | Retain land, water, seed, pesticide, warehouse licensing and enforcement functions. |
| THESO and independent reviewers | Finance appraised activities; independently examine expenditure, physical evidence, producer returns and losses separately from enterprise operations and payment authorisation. |
Scroll sideways to see all columns.
Planned measures
These are planned indicators. No result has been measured or verified yet.
- Indicator 07. Real net producer margin per hectare
- Indicator 08. Grain losses during funded storage
Discuss this area
Explore a producer or food-system partnership
Describe producer demand, land and water authority, the seasonal business case, buyer terms, operating costs and the evidence needed to test benefit.
Draft framework wording