Devising the right policy environment requires in-depth knowledge of the livelihood
strategies of rural households and careful consideration of ways to protect and promote
those strategies. It also needs to reflect the large disparities among the many categories of
rural households, or “rural worlds”. Consider five:
Rural World 1: Large-scale commercial agricultural households and enterprises.
Rural World 2: Traditional land holders and enterprises, not internationally
competitive.
Rural World 3: Subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises.
Rural World 4: Landless rural households and micro-enterprises.
Rural World 5: Chronically poor rural households, many no longer economically
active.
These categories are not mutually exclusive, and there will always be important
exceptions to the general classifications here. The typology is intended as a guide rather
than a rigid framework for differentiating rural households.
The interdependencies among these rural worlds are critical to understanding the
challenges facing the rural poor and to finding solutions. They deserve close examination –
and good understanding of the local rural economy. The main factors in developing this
typology include the financial and physical holdings of the household; the access to labour
and product markets and to a variety of services needed to sustain livelihoods, including
finance, information and infrastructure; the provisions for health care, education, and
training and upgrading skills (especially for women); and the social networks that enable
households to benefit from their participation in economic, political and social institutions
and organisations.
Livelihoods in rural areas are complex and diverse, affected in different ways by
policies to promote agricultural growth. Policies for effective poverty reduction need to be
informed not just by the evidence of agriculture’s contribution to pro-poor growth but by a
good understanding of the realities and dynamics of both the agricultural sector and rural
livelihoods – and of how poor rural households are constrained or supported by policies
and institutions. The challenge for policy makers is to base policies on good understanding
of their complexity and diversity.
In addition, the feminisation of agricultural work requires a clear gender perspective
to be integrated into policies for effective poverty reduction (Box 1.1). Not only are women
the mainstay of the agricultural food sector, labour force and food systems – they are also
largely responsible for post-harvest activities (CIDA, 2003).
Cambodia: Agriculture feminised
In Cambodia 65% of the agricultural labour and 75% of fisheries production are in the
hands of women. In all, rural women are responsible for 80% of food production. Half the
women producers are illiterate or have less than a primary school education; 78% are
engaged in subsistence agriculture, compared with 29% for men. In rural areas only 4% of
women and 10% of men are in wage employment.
Households headed by women are more likely than households headed by men to work
in agriculture, yet they are also more likely to be landless or have significantly smaller
plots of land. Policies, programmes and budgets for poverty reduction must thus address
the situation of Cambodian women.
Source: Gender and Development Network and NGO Forum on Cambodia (2004).
The rural world typology helps in beginning to understand these systems and
dynamics and to develop pro-poor policies (see the spotlight at the end of this chapter). By
using a more differentiated analysis based on people’s livelihoods and how these
livelihoods are situated in the local agricultural and broader rural economies, the typology
makes it clear that poverty is located unevenly across and within rural populations, that
agricultural policy affects different groups in different ways and that the actions or
activities of one group of rural people can improve or impair the livelihoods of others.
This analysis of rural livelihoods in relation to the agricultural sector reveals the rising
dependence of many people on sources of support from outside the household’s
agricultural production unit, from activities outside the broader agricultural sector and
from urban (even regional and global) markets. It also reveals how some rural households
have few or no assets for productive activity and are highly vulnerable to all sorts of shocks
Defining agriculture
Agriculture includes households engaged in farming, herding, livestock production,
fishing and aquaculture. Also included are other producers and individuals employed in
cultivating and harvesting food resources from salt and fresh water and cultivating trees
and shrubs and harvesting non-timber forest products – as well as processors, small-scale
traders, managers, extension specialists, researchers, policy makers and others engaged in
the food, feed and fibre system and its relationships with natural resources. This system
also includes processes and institutions, including markets, that are relevant to the
agriculture sector.
strategies of rural households and careful consideration of ways to protect and promote
those strategies. It also needs to reflect the large disparities among the many categories of
rural households, or “rural worlds”. Consider five:
Rural World 1: Large-scale commercial agricultural households and enterprises.
Rural World 2: Traditional land holders and enterprises, not internationally
competitive.
Rural World 3: Subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises.
Rural World 4: Landless rural households and micro-enterprises.
Rural World 5: Chronically poor rural households, many no longer economically
active.
These categories are not mutually exclusive, and there will always be important
exceptions to the general classifications here. The typology is intended as a guide rather
than a rigid framework for differentiating rural households.
The interdependencies among these rural worlds are critical to understanding the
challenges facing the rural poor and to finding solutions. They deserve close examination –
and good understanding of the local rural economy. The main factors in developing this
typology include the financial and physical holdings of the household; the access to labour
and product markets and to a variety of services needed to sustain livelihoods, including
finance, information and infrastructure; the provisions for health care, education, and
training and upgrading skills (especially for women); and the social networks that enable
households to benefit from their participation in economic, political and social institutions
and organisations.
Livelihoods in rural areas are complex and diverse, affected in different ways by
policies to promote agricultural growth. Policies for effective poverty reduction need to be
informed not just by the evidence of agriculture’s contribution to pro-poor growth but by a
good understanding of the realities and dynamics of both the agricultural sector and rural
livelihoods – and of how poor rural households are constrained or supported by policies
and institutions. The challenge for policy makers is to base policies on good understanding
of their complexity and diversity.
In addition, the feminisation of agricultural work requires a clear gender perspective
to be integrated into policies for effective poverty reduction (Box 1.1). Not only are women
the mainstay of the agricultural food sector, labour force and food systems – they are also
largely responsible for post-harvest activities (CIDA, 2003).
Cambodia: Agriculture feminised
In Cambodia 65% of the agricultural labour and 75% of fisheries production are in the
hands of women. In all, rural women are responsible for 80% of food production. Half the
women producers are illiterate or have less than a primary school education; 78% are
engaged in subsistence agriculture, compared with 29% for men. In rural areas only 4% of
women and 10% of men are in wage employment.
Households headed by women are more likely than households headed by men to work
in agriculture, yet they are also more likely to be landless or have significantly smaller
plots of land. Policies, programmes and budgets for poverty reduction must thus address
the situation of Cambodian women.
Source: Gender and Development Network and NGO Forum on Cambodia (2004).
The rural world typology helps in beginning to understand these systems and
dynamics and to develop pro-poor policies (see the spotlight at the end of this chapter). By
using a more differentiated analysis based on people’s livelihoods and how these
livelihoods are situated in the local agricultural and broader rural economies, the typology
makes it clear that poverty is located unevenly across and within rural populations, that
agricultural policy affects different groups in different ways and that the actions or
activities of one group of rural people can improve or impair the livelihoods of others.
This analysis of rural livelihoods in relation to the agricultural sector reveals the rising
dependence of many people on sources of support from outside the household’s
agricultural production unit, from activities outside the broader agricultural sector and
from urban (even regional and global) markets. It also reveals how some rural households
have few or no assets for productive activity and are highly vulnerable to all sorts of shocks
Defining agriculture
Agriculture includes households engaged in farming, herding, livestock production,
fishing and aquaculture. Also included are other producers and individuals employed in
cultivating and harvesting food resources from salt and fresh water and cultivating trees
and shrubs and harvesting non-timber forest products – as well as processors, small-scale
traders, managers, extension specialists, researchers, policy makers and others engaged in
the food, feed and fibre system and its relationships with natural resources. This system
also includes processes and institutions, including markets, that are relevant to the
agriculture sector.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar