Independent Dialogue
Geographical focus:
Australia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam
Main findings
There was a heavy emphasis on (a) making providing “Good Food for All” rewarding for SMEs today, and in the future (pathway 1); (b) creating a conducive framework for them to do so durably (pathway 5); and (c) getting the wider public to understand the value that they are creating (pathway 6). Underpinning all of this is that is the need for governments to create a supportive framework for SMEs in a sector where producers (i.e., smallholder farmers) tended to be in the informal economy and therefore invisible and unaccounted for. Governments have to also create legal frameworks that make i
... Read moret easier for them to operate, transact, and access credit. There are peculiar legacy issues that could make it hard for SMEs to operate, like inability to collateralize leases on land. Governments should also make it easy for them to get themselves heard. All of this is fundamental to retain people in rural areas and reverse urban-rural migration that is depleting the sector. Going beyond, it is important to help bridge the digital divide and look at it in terms of arresting the lack of digital literacy in general and making stakeholders aware of the resources available. The next step would be to localize and maintain the data, and then rationalize and link multidisciplinary data together to make them understood. SMEs do not have the resources to do these alone, so they would need external help on this coordination. These will help SMEs operate better. Finally, it is important for consumers to appreciate what SMEs are doing, particularly as they make quality improvements. They should be educated to accept higher prices for better quality products. Read less
Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Keywords: Environment and Climate, Finance, Innovation, Policy, Women & Youth Empowerment