This report identifies three priority actions at the core of the new agenda that should
guide policy formulation, institutional development and investments for and by the poor:
● Enhancing agricultural sector productivity and market opportunities (Chapter 2).
● Promoting diversified livelihoods (Chapter 3).
● Reducing risk and vulnerability (Chapter 4).
The potential for enhanced agricultural sector productivity to stimulate pro-poor
growth has been demonstrated most vividly in the Green Revolution, but there has been a
failure to realise this potential more widely through existing policy and market
arrangements. Greater harnessing of this potential has to be a central policy objective,
especially in areas where the natural resources are available for sustained increases in
productivity and in countries at a stage where agriculture can make a significant
contribution to economic development. In these countries, small production units
predominate and account for a large share of employment. A focus on enhancing the
productivity of small producers is thus justified because of the greater impact on poverty
and growth generated through increases in employment.
It has been realised for some time that rural people do not specialise in crop
production, fishing, forest management or livestock-rearing to the exclusion of other
sources of income. Instead, they combine a range of activities and occupations to build a
diverse portfolio of activities. One reason for this diversification is the need to address the
inherent risk and vulnerability of an activity that is dependent on the vagaries of nature
and is thus inherently risky. Although few longitudinal studies exist, there is general
agreement among researchers that the diversification of occupations and the proportion of
income from sources outside the household’s agricultural production unit are increasing.
The importance of non-production unit occupations for reducing poverty may be
recognised by governments and donors, but policy has not reflected it. Why? Perhaps
because it is widely believed that agricultural growth is the most important driver of the
rural economy. The focus has thus remained on increasing producer incomes, with
supplementary efforts to enhance skills and improve access to credit and productive
assets.
The neglect of the largely unrecognised potential in input enterprises and postharvest
agricultural enterprises continues to hinder the development of policies and
supports to encourage and expand the agricultural industries and services that add value
to produce. There is substantial scope to marry improved production-unit productivity and
market access with agricultural enterprises that contributes to the local and national
economy through increased employment and new investments.
Recent research on rural livelihoods shows, however, that many diversified
occupations are closely linked to urban areas. The synergy between agricultural sector
growth and urban-based enterprises is a key to local economic development and, at a
wider level, to pro-poor growth (Tacoli, 2004). It is also becoming more apparent that many
diversified occupations, especially those pursued by people in marginal areas, are situated
in urban locations – and given the poor prospects for substantial increases in household
incomes in these marginal areas, those occupations are providing an important livelihood
source.
There is also growing awareness of the problems facing those in many marginal areas
– where mutually reinforcing environmental, physical, institutional, social and political
factors trap them in low-productivity agricultural production and low levels of
diversification, with few prospects for exiting poverty. But policies remain ill-informed
about such constraints – and are ill-equipped to support multi-locational livelihoods.
Indeed, governments often discourage mobility and informal activities, vital for livelihood
diversification, in an effort to control urban “explosions”.
What is needed, therefore, is a broader entry point for poverty reduction, one tailored
to the diversity of livelihoods, not just to increasing the incomes of production units. Better
understanding is needed of the market and non-market constraints facing the poor in rural
areas – and of how greater mobility and stronger rural-urban links can reduce poverty and
promote regional development (Box 1.4).
While strategies for diversified incomes enable both men and women to increase their
income, they may also create problematic livelihood situations. Many who cannot obtain a
livelihood from their land must migrate to cities or to other rural areas for seasonal work.
The needs and realities of migrant women and men, seasonally employed in the
agricultural sector, need to be addressed, and gender-sensitive services need to be adapted
to their livelihood patterns.
What’s new in the broader agenda for agriculture
Views under the traditional agenda Views under the new agenda
Policies, institutions and investments in agriculture Policies, institutions and investments in and for agriculture
One rural world Multiple rural worlds
National markets National, regional and global markets
Production units Livelihood units
Agriculture = production Agriculture = agricultural sector (inputs + production +
post-harvest + manufacturing)
One work location Multiple work locations
Single sector approach Multi-sectoral approaches
Public sector Public and private sectors
Food crops Diverse income streams
Growth only Growth that minimises risk and vulnerability
Driven by supply Driven by supply and demand
Fundamentals Fundamentals
Acknowledged Delivered
The fundamentals are science, technology, infrastructure, land policy and education, extension and training.
guide policy formulation, institutional development and investments for and by the poor:
● Enhancing agricultural sector productivity and market opportunities (Chapter 2).
● Promoting diversified livelihoods (Chapter 3).
● Reducing risk and vulnerability (Chapter 4).
The potential for enhanced agricultural sector productivity to stimulate pro-poor
growth has been demonstrated most vividly in the Green Revolution, but there has been a
failure to realise this potential more widely through existing policy and market
arrangements. Greater harnessing of this potential has to be a central policy objective,
especially in areas where the natural resources are available for sustained increases in
productivity and in countries at a stage where agriculture can make a significant
contribution to economic development. In these countries, small production units
predominate and account for a large share of employment. A focus on enhancing the
productivity of small producers is thus justified because of the greater impact on poverty
and growth generated through increases in employment.
It has been realised for some time that rural people do not specialise in crop
production, fishing, forest management or livestock-rearing to the exclusion of other
sources of income. Instead, they combine a range of activities and occupations to build a
diverse portfolio of activities. One reason for this diversification is the need to address the
inherent risk and vulnerability of an activity that is dependent on the vagaries of nature
and is thus inherently risky. Although few longitudinal studies exist, there is general
agreement among researchers that the diversification of occupations and the proportion of
income from sources outside the household’s agricultural production unit are increasing.
The importance of non-production unit occupations for reducing poverty may be
recognised by governments and donors, but policy has not reflected it. Why? Perhaps
because it is widely believed that agricultural growth is the most important driver of the
rural economy. The focus has thus remained on increasing producer incomes, with
supplementary efforts to enhance skills and improve access to credit and productive
assets.
The neglect of the largely unrecognised potential in input enterprises and postharvest
agricultural enterprises continues to hinder the development of policies and
supports to encourage and expand the agricultural industries and services that add value
to produce. There is substantial scope to marry improved production-unit productivity and
market access with agricultural enterprises that contributes to the local and national
economy through increased employment and new investments.
Recent research on rural livelihoods shows, however, that many diversified
occupations are closely linked to urban areas. The synergy between agricultural sector
growth and urban-based enterprises is a key to local economic development and, at a
wider level, to pro-poor growth (Tacoli, 2004). It is also becoming more apparent that many
diversified occupations, especially those pursued by people in marginal areas, are situated
in urban locations – and given the poor prospects for substantial increases in household
incomes in these marginal areas, those occupations are providing an important livelihood
source.
There is also growing awareness of the problems facing those in many marginal areas
– where mutually reinforcing environmental, physical, institutional, social and political
factors trap them in low-productivity agricultural production and low levels of
diversification, with few prospects for exiting poverty. But policies remain ill-informed
about such constraints – and are ill-equipped to support multi-locational livelihoods.
Indeed, governments often discourage mobility and informal activities, vital for livelihood
diversification, in an effort to control urban “explosions”.
What is needed, therefore, is a broader entry point for poverty reduction, one tailored
to the diversity of livelihoods, not just to increasing the incomes of production units. Better
understanding is needed of the market and non-market constraints facing the poor in rural
areas – and of how greater mobility and stronger rural-urban links can reduce poverty and
promote regional development (Box 1.4).
While strategies for diversified incomes enable both men and women to increase their
income, they may also create problematic livelihood situations. Many who cannot obtain a
livelihood from their land must migrate to cities or to other rural areas for seasonal work.
The needs and realities of migrant women and men, seasonally employed in the
agricultural sector, need to be addressed, and gender-sensitive services need to be adapted
to their livelihood patterns.
What’s new in the broader agenda for agriculture
Views under the traditional agenda Views under the new agenda
Policies, institutions and investments in agriculture Policies, institutions and investments in and for agriculture
One rural world Multiple rural worlds
National markets National, regional and global markets
Production units Livelihood units
Agriculture = production Agriculture = agricultural sector (inputs + production +
post-harvest + manufacturing)
One work location Multiple work locations
Single sector approach Multi-sectoral approaches
Public sector Public and private sectors
Food crops Diverse income streams
Growth only Growth that minimises risk and vulnerability
Driven by supply Driven by supply and demand
Fundamentals Fundamentals
Acknowledged Delivered
The fundamentals are science, technology, infrastructure, land policy and education, extension and training.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar