INDONESIA “Agro-Food Policy and Institutional Reform” (P165966) Pillar 3: Knowledge Transfer for Capacity Building on Agriculture Risk Management ACTIVITY SUMARY NOTE A. Summary This activity summary note corresponds to Pillar 3: “Knowledge Transfer for Capacity Building on Agriculture Risk Management”, a sub-activity under the broader Technical Assistance “Agro-Food Policy and Institutional Reform” (P165966), with an objective to assist the Government of Indonesia in making better-informed decisions regarding selected agro-food policy, institutional and spending reforms. This sub-activity was implemented during May-November 2018 with a principal aim to strengthen local capacity to undertake analytical, feasibility and program development work in the area of agricultural risk assessment. B. Context/Background For an island nation such as Indonesia, with a population of more than 260 million people, nearly 45 percent of whom live in rural areas and who depend on the country’s agriculture sector for food and jobs, the benefits of more robust management of agricultural risks and associated volatility are multi-fold. Based on some preliminary analysis of historical production data, Indonesia loses on average an estimated US$904 million a year on food crops from risk-induced shocks (based on a food crops loss analysis (including rice, cassava, peanut, maize, soybean and sweet potato) during 1980-2016. This represents around 2.6 per cent of the gross value of food crops; with losses as high as 7.6 per cent linked to the most extreme events. Provinces situated in Jawa and Sumatera Islands with the Average Loss Cost (ALC) lower than 3% are less risky than provinces in Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua and Maluku Islands where ALCs are much higher (see Figure 1). The potential impact of risk on food crops is compounded by the complexities of transport and logistics in many provinces. Figure 1 - Food Crop Average Loss Cost by Province (as % of the Exposure) Blunting adverse shocks to agriculture production boosts productivity. Curbing production volatility protects rural jobs and livelihoods. Diversifying production systems and improving stewardship of natural resources (e.g., soil, water, forests, rangelands) nurtures biodiversity. Empowering women to manage risk strengthens household welfare and food and nutrition security. Most importantly, by reigning in uncertainty, effective agricultural risk management creates a more predictable environment for investments and sustained rural sector growth. Agricultural risk management (ARM) is identified by the GoI as a key strategy in efforts to increase productivity, strengthen food security, reduce poverty, and safeguard rural livelihoods. It is crucial to boosting prosperity among the rural poor. It is fundamental to a future in which productive, sustainable and healthy food systems are able to support a population expected to concentrate in/around urban areas as the country continues its rapid industrialization. It is critical to delivering improved food security, nutrition, and health outcomes for its rapidly growing population. Agricultural risk management is a primary GoI policy priority. The Law on Farmers’ Protection and Empowerment (2013) aims to secure farmers’ welfare by improving access to land, finance, and markets, providing protection against agricultural risk, and strengthening farmers’ organizations. The challenge remains how to implement a comprehensive strategy to protect farmers against agricultural risk in the context of having over 68 per cent of farming units classified as smallholder farmers with average sizes of around less than two hectares. Moreover, in 2012 about 65 million people hovered around the national poverty line and were highly vulnerable to food price increases, health shocks and natural disasters. 1 Tackling this challenge requires strengthening local capacity in developing strategies for curbing agricultural risk. Governments and agricultural stakeholders need to have an evidence-based assessment of the agricultural risks and their importance in terms of severity and frequency of occurrence, their costs in terms of financial losses and fiscal impacts, and of the capacity to manage risk by various stakeholders. Having an agreed assessment of risks empowers farmers, communities, and government agencies in making more optimal decisions to minimize the negative impacts of risks and taking advantage of investment opportunities. C. Managing agricultural risk: a holistic approach The World Bank has developed a methodology to assess, prioritize and manage agricultural risks through a holistic approach and to aid integration into national investment plans and strategies.2 Over the last decade, the World Bank has supported the introduction of systematic risk assessments in partner countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America, taking into account a wide variety of risks and relying on various sources, to obtain a clear picture of the priority risks affecting the entire agriculture sector (or in specific regions) and the country’s capacity to manage risk. The key is identifying priorities and developing an evidence-based and long- term action plan for managing sector risk that will guide investments, policy choices, and institutional reforms across the sector. The prioritized risks can be addressed by using a basket of strategies to mitigate, transfer, and/or cope with risk. An illustration of the conceptual framework of such strategies can be seen in the following graph. 1 World Bank (2014). Development Policy Review. Indonesia: Avoiding the trap. 2 World Bank (2015). Agriculture Risk Management. Methodological Guidelines for Development Practitioners. Figure 2 – Conceptual Framework for ARM This layering approach illustrates that Risk Mitigation strategies need to be adopted and implemented to strengthen farmers’ resilience to be able to retain risk for low severity - high frequency risk events. Whereas layer 2 is the typical Risk Transfer window for options of transferring risk (e.g., insurance, hedging) for the residual risk (for low frequency and medium losses) that cannot be retained by the farmer. However, for the very high losses – low frequency events that can cause catastrophic impacts (i.e. severe El Niño events) Risk Coping strategies are needed, particularly ex-ante preparedness by the government to secure contingent financing to assist rural communities to cope with risk. By undertaking comprehensive risk assessments for the main commodity supply chains and by adopting a holistic approach to identifying and prioritizing risk, governments are better equipped to start managing the main drivers of agricultural volatility and food insecurity. D. Methodology/Approach As part of the World Bank Agro-Food Policy and Institutional Reform (P165966) TA to Indonesia, the World Bank implemented the current sub-activity with an objective to strengthen via knowledge transfer and training local capacity to undertake analytical, feasibility and program development work in the area of agricultural risk assessment. During 30 April-4 May 2018, the World Bank mobilized a scoping mission to Jakarta and Bogor, Indonesia to meet with government, academic and other stakeholders to get a better understanding of risk dynamics affecting Indonesia’s agricultural sector and existing knowledge and capacity gaps for improved risk management. A key objective of the mission was to identify a local partner that could benefit from the proposed knowledge exchange activity and that could become the primary change agent through which ARM methodology could be institutionalized, further adapted to the Indonesian context, and disseminated. The mission highlighted a number of challenges and bottlenecks to the mainstreaming of more targeted, holistic risk management strategies into sector policy programming and planning. Key challenges and bottlenecks related primarily to: • limited awareness and capacity on agricultural risk management. • insufficient knowledge transfer between stakeholders (public-private partnerships), and low take-up of innovation persist in the area of agricultural risk mitigation. • risks still assessed based on perceptions or that are solutions-oriented. There is a lack of a standardized methodology to provide evidence-based risk assessments and prioritization. • Though ensuring more productive and resilient agriculture is a GOI priority, ARM is not an integral part of national policies and planning, nor is it integrated into agricultural services and programs. • a lack of a holistic, integrated approach. Most tools and initiatives provide stand-alone solutions for mitigating agricultural risks. For a sustainable ARM, tools and solutions need to be embedded in an integrated risk management approach that optimally combines mitigation, transfer and coping strategies. Within the above context, Pillar 3 activities were designed to facilitate the transfer of knowledge on conceptual and practical analytical approaches to Agricultural Risk Assessment and Management via:1) training of academic faculty at Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) in ARM methodology; and 2) the integration of the World Bank’s ARM knowledge base and experience into IPB’s cirriculum. As one of the premier academic institutions for agricultural training and research in Indonesia, IPB is well-positioned to leverage and disseminate knowledge and understanding of ARM through its education and professional training programs and to lead research that will inform evidence-based agricultural policy development and decision making in the short-, medium- and long-term. The focus of the approach was to enhance IPB’s training and research methodologies with the World Bank’s methodology and experience in advising developing economies in agricultural risk management over the past decade and more, and in piloting and applying diverse set of ARM strategies in various countries. The transfer of capacity and skills focused on integrating methodological approaches and materials into existing curricula and training the teaching staff in the Agribusiness Department via the delivery of training modules and workshops to highlight core conceptual approaches, methodologies and tools, best practices, and lessons learned. Specifically, the knowledge transfer and capacity-building activities included: (i) Adapting training materials that were developed by the Bank team and collaborators to conduct a Training of Trainers (ToT) of the IPB Agribusiness Risk academic team (see training agenda in Annex). (ii) Supporting IPB to adopt/adapt the training materials and incorporate them into their curriculum for university and executive training. In addition to the broader approaches and methodologies, the training incorporated specific weather (index-based insurance) and price risk (i.e. coffee, cocoa) management tools. (iii) A case study on the chilies supply chain was carried out with the risk management teaching team in Cianjur district, West Java province, to give hands-on experience in the Bank’s approaches and methodology, and more specifically, on data collection and triangulation of information with supply chain stakeholders. (iv) Transfer of pertinent documentation of key analytical and conceptual publications, including on approaches, methodologies, specific applications and tools, and study cases. The activities together aimed to drive sustainable institutional and behavioural change beyond the conventional training approach and, where possible, to use the capacity potential of local knowledge institutions such as Bogor University with aim to institutionalize and facilitate the mainstreaming over the medium- to long-term of ARM knowledge and practices. E. Summary of Outputs The primary outputs of this knowledge transfer and capacity-building activity are outlined below: 1. Training of trainers (TOT) on ARM methodology for Bogor University During August 14-16, 2018, a training of trainers was held at IPB’s Dramaga campus. Eleven members of the University’s academic faculty participated, all of whom (except one from the Statistics Department) were from the Agribusiness Department academic staff. Overall, the training was well received by the participants, who expressed strong interest and appreciation for the qualitative assessment, vulnerability analysis and climate risk aspects of the World Bank’s methodology, which were not covered within the Agribusiness Risk graduate and undergraduate syllabi. The participants also appreciated the anecdotal evidence and examples from various risk assessments conducted by the World Bank that were used to illustrate the training concepts. They requested that World Bank case studies be integrated into the syllabus to illustrate existing theoretical concepts. Furthermore, they asked that the qualitative assessment, vulnerability analysis, climatic and weather risk analysis also be integrated into the syllabus. 2. Strengthening ARM curriculum for Bogor University This activity benefited from strong collaboration between the Agribusiness Risk teaching team and the World Bank. The existing syllabus was expanded to include concepts such as conducting qualitative assessments and vulnerability analysis, and climate risks. Additionally, case studies from the Bank’s global ARM experience were added to illustrate the existing as well as the new topics covered under the revised draft syllabus. A copy of the Syllabus can be found in Annex. 3. Supply Chain Risks Assessment fieldwork A field assessment of risks within the Chilies Supply Chain was conducted to enrich the syllabus with a specific case study example from Indonesia. The chilies case study was conducted in Cianjur district, West Java province by a team composed of Agribusiness Risk faculty members and a World Bank consultant. The study found that wind storms, floods and excessive rainfall, counterparty risk, price volatility and drought were the main risks facing the supply chain. While the case study was not validated by stakeholders, it is anticipated that the team’s experience conducting the case study shall provide local examples of the Bank’s methodology for both the undergraduate and graduate courses. F. Proposed Follow-up Activity Training other stakeholders As a next step, and as a continuation of the above capacity building effort, IPB staff that participated in the above ToT could conduct a workshop to train relevant staff of GOI agencies, most likely convened by the Ministry of Agriculture. This follow up training will provide IPB with an opportunity to engage GOI agencies and introduce the new training materials and approach. The Ministry of Agriculture is also interested to incorporate ARM training into its syllabus and calendar of extension refresher courses for province and district staff. This represents a real opportunity for the World Bank and IPB to continue to collaborate on furthering training support to the Agricultural Ministry and other relevant agencies. G. Challenges and Recommendations During the implementation of the activity, several challenges hampered the team’s progress. These challenges, the lessons learned, and recommendations for future teams undertaking similar knowledge transfer and capacity-building work include: 1. Language barriers – Initial consultations with IPB faculty indicated that training participants had an advanced level of English. However, it was noted early on during the training that some of the participants had only a limited to moderate working level of English. These participants in some cases struggled with some of the more technical and conceptual concepts, but with a slower pace and translation help into Bahasa from colleagues, they were eventually able to understand the material. Recommendation: Teams should plan ahead to dedicate sufficient resources to translating the training materials into the local language prior to the training, which should be done for future trainings given the technical complexities of ARM concepts, etc. In addition, teams should include at least one native speaker who is ideally technically well versed and who can help facilitate efficient communication and information exchange. In the future, other concepts and analytical tools of a higher complexity such as weather index insurance and commodity price risk management could be introduced and incorporated into the training materials and curriculum once there is sufficient understanding of and local competency of the basic ARM methodology. 2. Training timing and location – The timing and location of the training caused avoidable disruptions. The training coincided with the end of the summer holiday break and the startup of the new academic year. To save costs, the team decided to organize the training at Bogor University. During the training workshops, some of the staff were given ad hoc assignments, which affected their ability to participate during the entire training program. Although, the TOT was conducted just before the start of the academic year, ad hoc departmental activities affected attendance. Also, the Department plans its calendar of activities 6 months in advance, and activities that are not on the Department’s calendar are considered to be ad hoc, and thus, of secondary importance. Recommendation: Future trainings should ideally be planned well in advance and held during the summer holiday when faculty members typically have fewer commitments and more flexible schedules. Also, trainings should ideally be organized off-site, away from campus, preferably in another city/district/province so to avoid competing time and workload commitments. REFERENCES FAO-ECTAD. 2016. Emergency Centre For Transboundary Animal Diseases. Indonesia. Annual Report 2015. Jakarta, Indonesia. Sayaka, B., T. Sudaryanto, Wahida, S. Wahyuni, A. Askin. 2016. Kajian Daya Tahan Sektor Pertanian Terhadap Gangguan Faktor Eksternal dan Kebijakan yang Diperlukan (A Study on Agricultural Resilience to the Shocks of External Factor and the Necessary Policy). Pusat Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian, Bogor. World Bank. 2015. Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment: Methodological Guidance for Practitioners. Agriculture Global Practice. Discussion Paper 10. Washington, D.C. Agriculture Sector Risk Assessment Training of Trainers August 14-16, 2018 IPB, Bogor Indonesia TUESDAY, 14 AUGUST 2018 09:00-09:15 Introduction: IPB Representative 09:15-09:45 Session I: Conceptual Framework and Operational Approach 09:45-10:15 Discussion 10:15-10:45 Session II: Understanding the Context and Background Research 10:45-11:15 Discussion 11:15-11:45 Session III: Understanding Vulnerability 11:45 – 12:15 Discussion 12:15 – 13:15 Lunch 13:15 – 13:45 Session IV: Incorporating Climate Change 13:45 – 14:15 Discussion 14:15 – 14:45 Session V: Data Analysis – Methods for Measurement 14:45 – 15:15 Discussion 15:15 – 16:00 Day 1 Wrap Up WEDNESAY, 15 AUGUST 2018 09:00 – 09:30 Summary of Learning from Day 1 Session VI: Quantification - By the Numbers (Part 1) 09:30 – 11:30 Group exercise 11:30 – 12:00 Group presentations and discussion 12:00 – 13:00 Lunch 13:00 – 13:30 Session VII: Quantification - By the Numbers (Part 2) 13:30-14:00 Discussion Session VIII: Field Assessment 14:00 – 15:30 Group exercise 15:30 – 16:00 Group presentations and discussion 16:00 – 16:30 Day 2 Wrap Up THURSDAY, 16 AUGUST 2018 09:00 – 09:30 Summary of Learning from Day 2 09:30 – 10:00 Session XI: Qualitative assessment: Beyond the Numbers 10:00-10:30 Discussion 10:30 – 11:00 Session X: Prioritizing Risk 11:00-11:30 Discussion Session XI: Risk Management Solutions 11:30 – 13:00 Group exercise 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 14:30 Group presentations and discussion 14:30 – 15:00 Session XII: Operationalizing Integrated Risk Management - Road to Resilience 15:00-15:30 Discussion 15:30 – 16:00 Training Wrap Up and Evaluation Agriculture Sector Risk Assessment Training of Trainers Participant List August 14-16, 2018 IPB, Bogor Indonesia NO. NAME POSITION TELEPHONE EMAIL 1 Suharno Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)813-8506-8369 suharno@apps.ipb.ac.id 2 Triana Gita Dewi Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)852-1557-2141 trianagita@gmail.com 3 Mahfudlotul Ula Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)856-4082-4632 ulaagb17@gmail.com 4 Chairani Putri P Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)811-1190-188 cpp.rani@gmail.com 5 Anisa Dwi Utami Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)822-5812-5711 anisadu42@gmail.com 6 Harmini Lecturer, Statistics Dept (62)811-1172-901 harmini1960@gmail.com 7 Suprehatin Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)812-9081-3252 suprehatin@gmail.com 8 Eva Y. Avny Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)812-8810-710 yolynda_eva@apps.ipb.ac.id 9 Tintin Sarianti Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)813-1441-8022 t-sarianti@gmail.com 10 Netti Tinaprilla Lecturer, Agribusiness Dept (62)821-2515-9555 tinaprila@gmail.com 11 Anna Fariyanti Coordinator, Agribusiness Risk (62)812-8638-115 a_fariyanti@yahoo.com COURSE AGRIBUSINESS RISK MANAGEMENT CODE AGB 621 CREDIT 3(3-0) SEMESTER ? DIVISION Business and Entrepreneurship COURSE COORDINATOR Dr Anna Fariyanti 1. Dr Anna Fariyanti TEACHING 1. TBD 2. Dr Netti Tinaprilla REQUIREMENT TEAM 2. TBD 3. Dr Suharno This subject delivers the theoretical concepts of agricultural risk such as agribusiness and risk, measuring of risk, utility theory related to risk, risk preference, modelling of agribusiness risk, types and kind of agricultural risk (output, price, policy program), production optimization under risk, decision making under risk, risk under Game Theory, decision maker responses on risk related issues (information, financial structure management, participating in government COURSE program, hedging and future trading, business and portfolio diversification, leasing, partnership, new technology adoption). DESCRIPTION Additionally, the course gives the students practical applications of the theoretical concepts with real world examples from the World Bank’s agricultural sector and supply chain risk assessment case studies. At the end of the course, students shall be expected to practically apply the acquired skills in a risk assessment of a farm or agribusiness or supply chain of their choosing. After studying this course, the student should be able to: 1. Explain the concept and the scope/ issues coverage of agribusiness risk LEARNING 2. Identify type and kind of risks in agriculture and agro-processing OUTCOME 3. Using quantitative as well as qualitative tool of analysis, interpret the results of analysis and to apply it in business and public policy decision making 4. Assess the capacity of the supply chain/agriculture sector actors to manage the identified risks 5. Prioritize the risks 6. Understand, to analyse and to apply risk management especially in agribusiness decision making Signature of Course Coordinator Head of Division Head of Department Date Version 0 WK LEARNING OUTCOME COURSE CONTENT INDICATORS TEACHING METHOD ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CASE STUDY &/ REFERENCE 1 Student able to a. Concept of risk Student able to: a. Lecture a. Exercise in True and a. World Bank, 2016. define and describe b. Concept of a. Define agricultural risk b. Reading False form or Multiple Pg. xi-12 key terms, concepts uncertainty b. Differentiate between assignment choice and essay b. Jaffee, Siegel and and theories of risk c. Probability, risk and constraints Andrews, 2008a. expectancy, variance, c. Describe different Pg. 9-27 standard of deviation, types and sources of variance coefficient agribusiness d. Types and sources of d. Define probability, risk expectancy, variance, e. Risk transmission standard of deviation, f. Risk management variance coefficient framework g. Other key terms and concepts 2-3 Student able to: a. Single/specialized risk Student able to: a. Lecture a. Paper assignment a. World Bank, 2016. a. Describe, analyse measurement: a. Choose the right b. Group Discussion b. Problem assignment Pg. 23-31 and interpret the b. Concept of portfolio approach in assessing c. Brain storming c. Group discussion b. Jaffee, Siegel and single and portfolio risk the risk, either it is d. Problem 2. Andrews, 2008a. risk c. portfolio risk single or portfolio assignment Pg 26-27 b. Quantify losses measurement b. Calculate both of c. Braimoh et al., due to production d. Quantifying single and portfolio 2018. Pg. 15-37. and price risks for production losses risk d. Anon. Pg.1-16 a single or multiple e. Assessing price c. Quantify production commodities volatility risk d. Quantify price risk 4-5 Student able to: a. Utility theory Student able to: a. Lecture a. Paper assignment a. World Bank, a. Describe the b. Income-risk a. Differentiate b. Group Discussion 2016. Pg. 45-50, individual relationship individual behaviour c. Course materials 33-35 behavior in c. Individual behaviour in handling the risk reading b. Jaffee, Siegel and handling the risk through the risk (risk b. Calculate the degree assignment Andrews, 2008a. averse, risk taker, risk of risk aversion Pg. 16-20 neutral) WK LEARNING OUTCOME COURSE CONTENT INDICATORS TEACHING METHOD ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CASE STUDY &/ REFERENCE b. Assess the d. Degree of risk c. Describe and explain c. Jaffee, Siegel and individual degree aversion individual degree of Andrews, 2008a. of risk aversion e. Assessment method of risk aversion Pg 79-83 c. Describe and degree of risk aversion d. Define vulnerability in d. WFP, 2015 assess risk f. Individual response to the context of risk e. Clarke and Hill, preference income changes management 2013 d. Define g. Definition of e. Apply the f. Choudhary and vulnerability and vulnerability in the vulnerability D’Alessandro, apply agricultural context assessment in policy 2015. Pg. 37-42 vulnerability h. Vulnerability design g. The World Bank assessment assessment tools f. Use qualitative Group, 2015 results in policy i. Synthesis and methodologies to add design illustration of value to risk e. Carry out field vulnerability assessment and qualitative assessment assessment j. Application of vulnerability assessment to risk assessment and policy design k. Application and incorporation of qualitative assessment results into risk assessment 6-7 Student able to: a. Model in risk analysis Student able to: a. Lecture a. Paper assignment a. World Bank, a. Describe the risk b. Just and Pope model a. Describe the risk b. Group Discussion b. Problem assignment 2016. Pg. 105- analysis model c. ARCH-GARCH model analysis model, c. Brain storming c. Group discussion 107 b. Describe and d. Decision theory in interpret the model d. Problem b. Braimoh et al., explain decision uncertainty (payoff and when to use the assignment 2018 Pg. 53-68. theory in matrix model c. Jaffee, Siegel uncertainty e. Decision Trees, b. Apply the right and Andrews, c. Assess the farm Maximax, maximin, approach in making 2008b. Pg 84-86 income in bayes /laplace, decision in uncertainty hurwicz, programming uncertainty situation WK LEARNING OUTCOME COURSE CONTENT INDICATORS TEACHING METHOD ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CASE STUDY &/ REFERENCE d. Use f. Risk prioritisation c. Calculate the income prioritisation filters changes probability in filters, g. Risk prioritisation uncertainty determine analytical tools d. Develop and use risk probability of h. Game theory prioritisation filters, event and and illustrate with severity of its analytical tools impact, assess e. Make a decision base the relative on game theory importance of commodity risk, and develop prioritisation matrix. e. Explain and demonstrate game theory 8 Student able to: a. Climate change in Student able to: a. Lecture a. Paper assignment a. World Bank, 2016. a. Understand context of agricultural a. Differentiate between b. Group Discussion Pg. 4-6, 83-90 linkages between risk management weather and climate c. Course material b. Braimoh et al., climate change b. Types of risk bank b. Align weather risk read assignment 2018 Pg. 21-25. impacts and c. Bank risk management solutions to climate c. Mulenga and agricultural strategy change solutions Wineman, 2014 weather risk d. Probability c. Differentiate between b. Incorporate assessment the various types of climate change e. Assessing risk impact bank risk considerations with VaR d. Pick the right strategy into the risk in managing the bank management risk framework c. Describe and explain different types of bank risk and strategy to manage it WK LEARNING OUTCOME COURSE CONTENT INDICATORS TEACHING METHOD ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CASE STUDY &/ REFERENCE 9 Student able to: a. Mapping the risk Student able to: a. Lecture b. Paper assignment a. World Bank, 2016. a. Depict the risk resources and develop a. Identify risk b. Group Discussion c. Problem assignment Pg. 51-57 resources and strategy to handle the probabilities and its c. Brain storming d. Group discussion b. Jaffee, Siegel and develop strategy risk impacts d. Problem Andrews, 2008a. in risk b. Risk management b. depict the source of assignment Pg. 37-41 management strategies risk b. understand, c. Filtering risk c. formulate the strategy identify, and filter management to manage the risk risk management solutions d. Identify risk solutions d. Solutions assessments management c. identify the risk e. Risk management strategies management strategy and action e. Filter and apply the strategy plan best risk management f. Diversification strategies to the strategy identified risks g. Vertical integration f. Develop an appropriate risk strategy management strategy h. Production contract and action plan i. Marketing contract j. Hedging k. Insurance 10- a. Student able to: a. Risk management in Students able to: a. Practical (field) a. Risk assessment 14 describe and action (case study) a. Prepare a risk assignment proposal presentation depict the risk b. Operational assessment proposal b. Risk assessment report b. Present and defend management in considerations for proposal the real life risk management c. Carry out field action plans assessment c. Entry points for d. Write a risk assessment mainstreaming risk report management d. Guiding principles for monitoring and evaluation REFFERENCES 1. World Bank. 2016. Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment: Methodological Guidance for Practitioners. Agriculture Global Practice Discussion Paper 10. World Bank. Washington DC 2. Jaffee, S., Siegel, P., and Andrews, C. 2008 Rapid Agricultural Supply Chain Risk Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Guidelines for Application Volume 1. World Bank. Washington DC 3. Jaffee, S., Siegel, P., and Andrews, C. 2008. Rapid Agricultural Supply Chain Risk Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Guidelines for Application Volume 2. World Bank. Washington DC 4. WFP. 2015. Food Security and Vulnerability Atlas of Indonesia 2015. https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp276251.pdf 5. Clarke, Daniel and Hill, Ruth Vargas, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the African Risk Capacity Facility (September 2013). IFPRI Discussion Paper 01292. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2343159 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2343159 6. Choudhary, Vikas; D'Alessandro, Stephen. 2015. Ghana Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment : Risk Prioritization. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22498 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. 7. World Bank Group. 2015. Mongolia Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23354 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO 8. Braimoh, Ademola; Mwanakasale, Alex; Chapoto, Antony; Rubaiza, Rhoda; Chisanga, Brian; Mubanga, Ngao; Samboko, Paul; Hoglund Giertz, Asa Margareta G.; Obuya, Grace Anyango. 2018. Increasing agricultural resilience through better risk management in Zambia (English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/330211524725320524/Increasing-agricultural-resilience-through-better-risk-management-in-Zambia 9. Hoglund Giertz, Asa Margareta G.; Gray, George Richard; Mudahar, Mohinder S.; Rubaiza, Rhoda; Galperin, Diana; Suit, Kilara Constance. 2015. Rwanda - Agricultural sector risk assessment (English). Agriculture global practice technical assistance paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/525111468180254519/Rwanda-Agricultural-sector-risk-assessment 10. Anon. Indonesia Risk Assessment: Indonesia rice price volatility analysis 11. Mulenga, Brian P., and Ayala Wineman. 2014. “Climate Trends and Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Change in Zambia.” Indaba Agricultural Research Policy Institute. http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/wp86_rev.pdf.