tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22014855967539823822023-06-20T05:39:45.704-07:00agricultureblogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-35700111294343064992008-04-25T22:11:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:16:42.286-07:00Extending secure property rights<div style="text-align: justify;">For most of the rural poor in developing countries, land is the primary means for<br />generating a livelihood and a main vehicle for investing, accumulating wealth and<br />transferring it between generations. Because land makes up such a large share of the asset<br />portfolio of the poor, giving secure property rights to land they already possess can greatly<br />increase the wealth of poor people who, unlike the rich, cannot afford the (official and<br />unofficial) fees needed to deal with the formal system.Unequal ownership of land is also a critical factor that creates and maintains<br />differences between women and men, with consequences for the coming generations. In<br />Kenya, for example, only 5% of the landowners are women, despite the fact that African<br />women produce 60%-80% of the continent’s food (Kameri-Mbote and Mubuu, 2002). A<br />World Bank policy research report, “Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction”,<br />concludes that the increased control by women over land titles could have “a strong and<br />immediate effect on the welfare of the next generation and on the level and pace at which<br />human and physical capital are accumulated” (World Bank, 2003). Ensuring that women<br />have secure rights to land is thus critical in many respects, including the challenges arising<br />in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, where the absence of secure land tenure for<br />women who have lost their husbands has been shown to be a key reason for costly conflict<br />and additional hardship.<br />Secure title to land not only promotes wealth creation but can also enhance security.<br />China illustrates that broad-based land access can provide a basic social safety net at a cost<br />much below alternative government programmes, allowing government to spend scarce<br />resources on productive infrastructure instead of safety nets. Having their basic<br />subsistence ensured is likely to have allowed Chinese households to take on greater risks<br />in non-agricultural businesses. With policies to foster lease markets for land, this also<br />contributed significantly to a vibrant rural economy.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-62479577655307538472008-04-25T22:11:00.000-07:002008-04-25T22:13:01.363-07:00Improving market access<div style="text-align: justify;">Productivity gains can mean little without expanded access to markets. Market<br />structures in many rural regions of the developing world are very weak, so the allocative<br />efficiencies that markets achieve in fast-growing sectors of their economies do not<br />materialise. Instead, undeveloped market demand for outputs discourages producers from<br />raising production, while the consequent failures of incomes to rise in rural areas deters<br />private traders and rural enterprises from entering and doing business. A vicious cycle. In<br />the absence of functioning markets, rural areas remain trapped in a subsistence economy<br />in which neither the narrow agricultural production sector nor the wider rural economy<br />(both of which generate off-farm employment opportunities) can grow.<br />In the past many governments tried to address agricultural market failures in rural<br />areas by creating state-managed organisations, such as marketing boards. Most of these<br />interventions proved to be costly failures, often enabling widespread corruption to take<br />hold to rural economies, and are becoming less and less common. The problems associated<br />with weak markets remain, however, and new efforts are required if the agricultural sector<br />is to spark sustained and rapid growth in poor countries. These efforts should focus on<br />creating effective markets through improving the enabling conditions for wider private<br />sector participation. Removing restrictions on the movement, sale and purchase of<br />agricultural products is one example where changes are needed.<br />Insecure property rights, weak financial services and poor infrastructure are three<br />of the most common barriers to more efficient rural markets, often to the notable<br />disadvantage of women. There is mounting evidence for attention to all three areas to<br />transform stagnating rural areas.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-58429123337629652072008-04-25T22:10:00.002-07:002008-04-25T22:11:24.069-07:00Diversifying outputs<div style="text-align: justify;">The diversification of outputs involves a change in primary production or household<br />post-harvest processing to capture more value added. This category spans a wide range<br />of technological options from household processing of cassava roots – to making milk<br />products to sell to passers by – to organic farming and the production of fruits or poultry to<br />supply global supermarket chains. Often market demands make this category of<br />technology better suited to well resourced producers in Rural Worlds 1 and 2, who can<br />more easily meet demands for volume, quality and timeliness of deliveries. Others in Rural<br />World 2 as well as in Rural World 3 are likely to need finance and extensive institutional<br />support to diversify, organise marketing and maintain technical quality.<br />Risks and financing needs for diversification will tend to be higher than those for<br />merely upgrading production technology for existing staples. Careful prior assessments of<br />markets and their needs, good information systems and ready rural access are other<br />prerequisites for successful diversification. But for many small producers for whom the<br />returns from staple crop production are no longer sufficient to earn a living, diversifying<br />outputs may be the only technical strategy that will allow them to stay on the land.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-61278376023560684402008-04-25T22:10:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:10:55.342-07:00Managing natural resources better<div style="text-align: justify;">Natural resource management practices typically raise the productivity of household<br />labour through changes in agricultural practices, such as managing water, soils and crop<br />residues to augment in situ capture and retention of rainfall and raise land productivity or<br />controlling pests and weeds by exploiting natural biological processes. Approaches such as<br />dry-land cultivation, water harvesting and flood recession farming as well as<br />dissemination of demand management techniques such as irrigation water conservation<br />and waste water reuse can help address the needs of poor agricultural households while<br />promoting sustainable use of water. Genetic improvements can play an important part in<br />these efforts, but often do more to reduce risks by stabilising and diversifying production<br />rather than maximising yield.<br />This category of technology is knowledge-intensive and often location-specific. With<br />less stress on maximising yields, it seeks to lower risks and unit costs of output. It can be a<br />first technology for many agricultural households in Rural World 3 that retain some usable<br />land and labour but have no financial reserves, as well as for the financially vulnerable in<br />Rural World 2. It can help women, the old and households with labour forces depleted by<br />migration or HIV/AIDS to increase household food production on the small parcels of land<br />they have retained. Developing the needed natural resource management technologies will<br />require investments in science and technology, and disseminating existing technology will<br />require widely distributed and skilled technical support on the ground.<br />Integrated water resource management can support the sustainable and equitable use<br />of water. An integrated water policy relies on improved planning and legal frameworks,<br />analysis of supply and demand, improved education and sector co-ordination.<br />Co-ordination and arbitration are essential in conflicts arising due to increasing water<br />scarcity, especially for cross-border resources where only supra-national or external bodies<br />can provide a structure for dialogue. Co-ordination also improves water governance by<br />enhancing decision makers’ accountability for resource development and management.<br />Policy must be tailored to increase the efficiency of natural resource management by<br />incorporating knowledge from women and promoting greater participation of women<br />stakeholders. Erosion, drought, floods, desertification and pollution mean that women find<br />it harder to collect food, fuel and water. Poor sanitation has implications for health and the<br />schooling of girls and women. In addition, women often have more knowledge about the<br />ecosystems, but are often not included in natural resource management and<br />environmental protection.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-66752551692217539222008-04-25T22:09:00.000-07:002008-04-25T22:10:10.676-07:00Intensifying input-based production<div style="text-align: justify;">Intensifying input-based production, centred on seed varieties with higher productive<br />potential and the fertilisers and pesticides to realise these potentials, was the focal point<br />of the Green Revolution in Asia. Similar efforts, expanded to include livestock breeds and<br />associated veterinary drugs and compound feeds, hold great potential for rural households<br />in Rural Worlds 1, 2 or 3. This is particularly true in areas with good agro-ecological<br />resources, low climatic risks, good access to input suppliers and to markets.<br />Most of the opportunities for intensifying input-based production have already been<br />exploited, however, and new opportunities will require much improved dissemination<br />of existing intensification technologies, significant investments in infrastructure<br />programmes and functioning input markets. Input-based production intensification can<br />also degrade land, which over time limits the yield responses. Furthermore, in Africa far<br />fewer producers have irrigation, resource endowments are often too poor, and risks are too<br />high for input-based intensification to be relevant to more than a few producers in<br />Rural Worlds 1 and 2.<br />Producers and processors in Rural World 1, also in some cases in Rural World 2,<br />already benefit from advanced technologies based on the recent discoveries of molecular<br />biology and genetic manipulation. However, much of this technology remains primarily<br />aimed at users in developed countries and has been financed by multinational companies.<br />For the originators of the technology, research and development geared to the needs of the<br />rural poor in developing countries are not considered high return investments. Application<br />of some of the principles of these advanced technologies to the needs of poorer producers<br />in Rural Worlds 2, 3 and 4 could nevertheless do much to raise their productivity and<br />reduce risks. For instance, tissue culture can generate virus-free, and hence more<br />productive, stocks of perennial crops that are important to the survival strategies of poor<br />households.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-46202040104380972382008-04-25T22:08:00.002-07:002008-04-25T22:09:28.827-07:00Why should we care about the future of small-scale agriculture?<div style="text-align: justify;">The efficiency of smaller production units in most developing countries is demonstrated<br />by an impressive body of empirical studies showing an inverse relationship between unit<br />size and land productivity (Heltberg, 1998). Moreover, small producers often achieve higher<br />land productivity with lower capital intensities than large units. These are important<br />efficiency advantages in many poor countries where land and capital are scarce relative to<br />labour.<br />The greater land productivity of small units stems from their greater abundance of<br />household labour per hectare cultivated. Household workers are typically more motivated<br />than hired workers are, and they provide higher quality and self-supervising labour. They<br />also tend to think in terms of whole jobs or livelihoods rather than hours worked, and are<br />less driven by wage rates at the margin than hired workers. Small producers exploit labourusing<br />technologies that increase yields (hence land productivity), and they use labourintensive<br />methods rather than capital-intensive machines. As a result, their land and<br />capital productivities are higher and their labour productivity is typically lower than that<br />of large production units. This is a strength in labour-surplus economies, but it becomes a<br />weakness for the long-term viability of small-scale production as countries get richer and<br />labour becomes more expensive.<br />In poor, labour-abundant economies, small producers are not only more efficient but<br />they also account for large shares of the rural and total poor, so small production unit<br />development can be win-win for growth and poverty reduction. Asia’s Green Revolution<br />showed how agricultural growth that reaches large numbers of small units could<br />transform rural economies and raise enormous numbers of people out of poverty<br />(Rosegrant and Hazell, 2000). Recent studies show that a more egalitarian distribution of<br />land not only leads to higher economic growth but also helps ensure that the growth<br />achieved is more beneficial to the poor (Deininger and Squire, 1998; Ravallion and<br />Datt, 2002). Small producers also contribute to greater food security, particularly in<br />subsistence agriculture and in backward areas where locally produced foods avoid the high<br />transport and marketing costs associated with many purchased foods.<br />Small producer households have more favourable expenditure patterns for promoting<br />growth of the local rural economy, including rural towns. They spend higher shares of<br />incremental income on rural non-tradables than large production units (Mellor, 1976;<br />Hazell and Roell, 1983), thereby creating additional demand for the many labour-intensive<br />goods and services that are produced in local villages and towns. These demand-driven<br />growth links provide greater income-earning opportunities for small producers an<br />landless workers.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-5483540925292867082008-04-25T22:08:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:08:30.540-07:00Increasing the agricultural sector’s productivity<div style="text-align: justify;">The productive potential of agriculture is highly varied and depends on the natural<br />endowment, geographical location, links to the rest of the economy and social dimensions<br />of the population. But the general failure in recent decades to achieve sustained rates of<br />agricultural sector productivity and the pro-poor growth linked to it, especially in sub-<br />Saharan Africa, can be put down to inappropriate policies; inadequate institutions and<br />services; failures to invest in appropriate infrastructure; and failures to invest in the<br />development of the human, social and natural capital that agricultural households need to<br />achieve higher productivity.<br />Governments need to make choices in allocating resources for the support of<br />agriculture. There is a strong argument to prioritise such support to producers and<br />enterprises of Rural Worlds 2 and 3, where the stage of economic development of a country<br />and the availability and relative cost of labour mean that there would be a greater impact<br />on poverty from government support (Box 2.1). For poorer countries the attraction of small<br />production units lies in their economic efficiency relative to larger units. They can create<br />large amounts of productive employment, reduce rural poverty, support a more vibrant<br />rural economy and help reduce rural-urban migration.<br />The very limited capacity of the vast majority of poor rural households to access,<br />analyse and utilise new knowledge on improved practices is a binding constraint to<br />enhanced productivity. Research, development and information services that address this<br />constraint have been weakened by years of under-funding and by failures of institutions to<br />respond in relevant ways to the needs of agricultural producers, especially those in Rural<br />Worlds 2 and 3 (IFAD, 2004). As a result, producers who lack the resources to obtain it on<br />their own have not had access to the information and technologies that would enable them<br />to adopt improved production strategies and increase the income and well-being of their<br />households.<br />Pro-poor strategies for agricultural research and its dissemination need to be tailored<br />to the needs of the rural worlds and be aware of the broad range of factors affecting their<br />adoption of new technology. Research strategies need to incorporate knowledge from local<br />actors, and an institutional framework based on much greater participation of a wide range<br />of stakeholders needs to be developed. Innovative approaches to the delivery of associated<br />information services, including public, private and civil society actors, also need to be<br />developed.<br />In identifying the constraints to productivity enhancement in the different rural<br />worlds it is important to recognise that both land and labour productivity are central to<br />pro-poor growth. In the early stages of development, land productivity is most critical in<br />order to create additional employment opportunities in agricultural production. In the later<br />stages, labour productivity increases in importance as off farm wage rates rise but<br />demands for agricultural workers remain high. Three broad categories of technology are<br />available to increase the productivity of agricultural households: intensifying input-based<br />production, managing natural resources better, and diversifying outputs in primary<br />production or household post-harvest processing to capture more value added.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-1836252876360789482008-04-25T22:07:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:07:46.182-07:00Framing agriculture’s contribution to pro-poor growth in the new context<div style="text-align: justify;">Agricultural sector productivity gains and market access lie at the core of a more<br />robust agricultural economy and of pro-poor growth. Endeavours to increase sector<br />productivity and expand market access must recognise from the outset, however, that the<br />challenges facing today’s rural households are much different from those confronted by<br />the Green Revolution producers who recorded rapid and sustained gains only two or three<br />decades ago. Many of today’s poorest producers live in less favoured or fragile regions,<br />whose agricultural potential is being jeopardised by degradation of the natural resource<br />base and constrained by inadequate attention to infrastructure needs.<br />In sub-Saharan Africa, where many of the poorest rural households are located, there<br />is no dominant food-production system. Instead, a wide variety of production systems<br />serve as the livelihood foundation for agricultural communities. The demography of these<br />and many other rural communities is also changing rapidly, as agriculture is increasingly<br />becoming feminised through the effects of migration and the impacts of HIV/AIDS. Many<br />producers lack access to key inputs and services, including credit and extension. Moreover,<br />many small producers now compete in markets that are much more demanding in quality<br />and food safety and distorted by OECD agricultural subsidies and the trade barriers of<br />developing countries.<br />In many poor countries, especially in Africa, there still is excellent growth potential for<br />small producers in the food staples sector (cereals, roots and tubers and traditional<br />livestock products). For Africa as a whole, the consumption of these foods accounts for the<br />lion’s share of agricultural output and is projected to double by 2015. This will add another<br />USD 50 billion to demand (in 1996-2000 prices). Moreover, with more commercialisation<br />and urbanisation, much of this added demand will translate into market transactions, not<br />just additional household consumption.<br />No other agricultural markets offer growth potential on this scale to reach huge<br />numbers of Africa’s rural poor. Many small producers could double or triple their incomes<br />if they could capture a large share of this market growth. Simulations with economy-wide<br />models at the International Food Policy Research Institute confirm this conjecture. For<br />Ethiopia (a poor and food-deficit country) the fastest way to reduce poverty by 2015 is<br />through productivity growth in food staples. This strategy outperforms a strategy built<br />around increasing the production of high-value products (Hazell, 2004). If small producers<br />are to capture a fair share of this growth in food staples, particularly in Africa, they will<br />have to become more competitive, especially against cheap food imports from abroad.<br />In many middle and higher income countries in Asia and Latin America, food staple<br />market opportunities are more constrained, with demand growth linked more to growth in<br />livestock feed or export opportunities than to domestic human consumption. In these<br />cases small producers need urgently to diversify into higher value products that face much<br />better demand prospects. A challenge for this “new” high-value agriculture is to make it<br />pro-poor. Left to market forces alone, the major beneficiaries of the new high-value<br />agriculture will mostly be the larger and commercially oriented producers and producers<br />well connected to roads and markets. The majority of small producers are likely to get left<br />behind. Fortunately, there is great opportunity to guide the new high-value agriculture so<br />that small producers and even many backward regions can participate.<br />Influence in society, both in official organisations and informal village associations, is<br />distributed along gender lines. Hence policy needs to consider women’s access to, and<br />interaction with, informal and formal networks, marketing organisations and<br />administrations – as well as training for women producers and entrepreneurs to learn<br />about and adapt to new economic structures and marketing.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-52264121228981132392008-04-25T22:06:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:06:57.725-07:00Increasing productivity and improving market access<div style="text-align: justify;">Successful pro-poor growth strategies led by agriculture depend on increased<br />agricultural sector productivity and improved access to domestic, regional and global<br />markets. But there is potential for further production unit – based productivity growth,<br />which has not been fully exploited under existing policy and market arrangements.<br />Harnessing this potential will immediately improve conditions for poor rural households –<br />either directly through market prices or indirectly through labour markets.<br />The weak human capacity of producer households and inappropriate and risky<br />technologies can undermine efforts to achieve higher levels of productivity and diversify<br />production into higher value products. Insecure and limited access to land, water and<br />finance compound these weaknesses. Sustained and targeted policies that address these<br />challenges and take account of local contexts can help realise agricultural households’<br />production potential. Delivering such policies requires combined and coordinated efforts<br />by public, private and civil society organisations.<br />Market access is critical for agriculture to become the main driver of pro-poor growth.<br />Households and firms in Rural Worlds 1 and 2 rely heavily on access to markets for their<br />agricultural production and on the labour from Rural Worlds 3 and 4 to produce surpluses.<br />Reasons for poor market access include the global “rules of the game” – restrictions,<br />standards and subsidies of wealthy states – down to local-level factors. They also include<br />the poor organisation and influence of producers, weak transport and communications<br />infrastructure and limited market information. Addressing these constraints requires<br />policy shifts at the regional and global levels – and substantial investment in the transport<br />infrastructure to enable produce to move from production units to the marketplace.<br />Strengthening social capital, in such forms as producer organisations, can ensure that<br />agricultural households have the ability to negotiate in the marketplace and secure fairer<br />prices for their products.<br />Agricultural households in Rural Worlds 2 and 3 can improve their incomes through<br />enhanced engagement with the market place underpinned by an ability to increase<br />productivity in a sustainable way. Commercial producers and firms in Rural World 1<br />provide employment opportunities for households in Rural Worlds 3 and 4 and their<br />pioneering in regional and global markets open future opportunities to producers in Rural<br />Worlds 2 and 3. These commercial agricultural businesses can be viewed as “engines of<br />growth” within the wider rural economy, stimulating and sustaining the labour market and<br />opening commodity markets.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-20646364016307078712008-04-25T22:05:00.000-07:002008-04-25T22:06:11.692-07:00chronically poor rural households, many no longerRural World 5 households are chronically poor. Most have sold off or been stripped of<br />their asset holdings during periods of crisis. Remittances from relatives, community safety<br />nets and government transfers are vital to their sustenance. As a result of the HIV/AIDS<br />pandemic, many more households are facing this precarious situation. Entrenched gender<br />inequalities exacerbate this problem. Social exclusion often typifies the relationship of<br />Rural World 5 to the larger community. Cash and in-kind transfer schemes will be critical<br />for this group for some time.blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-58143720856650138512008-04-25T22:04:00.002-07:002008-04-25T22:05:27.636-07:00landless rural households and micro-enterprises<div style="text-align: justify;">Rural World 4 households are landless, frequently headed by women, with little access<br />to productive resources other than their own labour. Sharecropping or working as<br />agricultural labourers for better-off households in their communities is perhaps the most<br />secure livelihood option for many of them. For others, migrating to economic centres on a<br />daily, seasonal or even permanent basis is their best hope for survival. But their low<br />education levels are a major barrier to migrating out of poverty.<br />Community ties, the glue in this group’s socioeconomic sphere, can be an important<br />asset in seeking out alternative livelihood options. But participation in more influential<br />economic and political networks is not common. As for Rural World 3, the fortunes of Rural<br />World 4 rely on Rural Worlds 1 and 2 for employment and income-earning opportunities.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-80776651294900467882008-04-25T22:04:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:04:48.130-07:00subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises<div style="text-align: justify;">Rural World 3 households – fisherman, pastoralists, smallholders and associated<br />micro-enterprises – are survivalist. Food security is their main concern, and their small<br />production units are almost totally dedicated to home consumption. Their assets are<br />poorly developed, and they have very limited access to services (credit) that would enable<br />them to increase the returns to their assets. Their ability to manage risk and associated<br />vulnerability is limited to informal means, thus severely constraining their ability to take<br />on higher risk, higher return livelihood opportunities. Many live in fragile ecosystems or<br />less favoured regions and depend on off-farm employment for a significant percentage of<br />their livelihood. This group embraces many women and female-headed households, who<br />are among the poorest and most exposed in rural areas. The social sphere of Rural<br />World 3 rarely extends beyond local communities, and their voice is almost unheard in the<br />broader socioeconomic and political affairs shaping their lives. The economic fortunes of<br />Rural Worlds 1 and 2 greatly affect Rural World 3’s employment and income-earning<br />opportunities, and sustained periods of growth give some the option of leaving subsistence<br />production altogether.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-28976916225108356172008-04-25T22:01:00.000-07:002008-04-25T22:04:16.900-07:00traditional landholders and enterprises, not internationally<div style="text-align: justify;">Rural World 2 accounts for a substantial number of rural households and agricultural<br />firms in the developing world. The one word that most aptly characterises them is<br />“traditional”. They are frequently part of the local elite but have little influence at the<br />national level. They have sizable landholdings often devoted to both commercial and<br />subsistence agriculture. They previously had access to basic services, such as finance, but<br />with the advent of liberalisation and the consequent withdrawal of the state from a direct<br />role in agriculture, the availability of these services declined rapidly. Access to formal risk<br />management instruments is limited.<br />Rural World 2 producers have few ties (if any) to the important agribusiness supply<br />chains. Their traditional orientation, embedded in local networks, is becoming less<br />appropriate as national and international interdependencies reshape rural societies<br />throughout the developing world. Some researchers argue that with better access to<br />improved technologies and infrastructure services, Rural World 2 producers could regain<br />some of their competitiveness, particularly in food staples. The more entrepreneurial<br />members of this group are learning from their Rural World 1 neighbours and becoming<br />more commercial. They are also benefiting from investments in services directed primarily<br />at Rural World 1, such as improved transport systems.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-39296894057577856852008-04-25T22:00:00.001-07:002008-04-25T22:00:57.553-07:00large-scale commercial agricultural households and<div style="text-align: justify;">Rural World 1 households and enterprises engaged in high-value, export-oriented<br />agriculture, make up a very small minority of rural households and firms in the developing<br />world. In addition to their land and other holdings, producers and firms in this category<br />have direct access to finance, risk management instruments, information and<br />infrastructure necessary to remain competitive in their business operations. Most have an<br />influential voice in national policies and institutions affecting their enterprises and,<br />perhaps even more important, close ties to buyer-driven value chains associated with<br />global agriculture. Rural World 1 producers and firms are considered to be important<br />sources of employment because they depend on inexpensive labour and reliable contract<br />farming agreements to ensure a timely supply of quality produce.<br />The economic power of this group enables them to influence the political affairs of<br />their countries. They often use this influence to shape public policies that favour their<br />interests and to steer public expenditures to investment priorities that meet their needs.<br />They are well positioned to meet the strict new regulations imposed by importing nations<br />and by retail buyers expanding operations in regional and national markets.<br /><br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-63886301459623892162008-04-25T21:59:00.001-07:002008-04-25T21:59:58.743-07:00Implications for investments<div style="text-align: justify;">Many poor rural households suffer from “ecological poverty”, their livelihoods<br />constrained by the impoverishment of the natural resources they depend on. Investing in<br />natural capital can be a central part of poverty reduction strategies addressing the needs of<br />poor rural households. These investments must be coupled with efforts to ensure that the<br />poor obtain a fair share of the benefits generated by the natural assets they already own<br />and manage. And greater attention must be devoted to sound stewardship of “open access”<br />environmental resources, often appropriated by the more economically powerful in<br />society, to the disadvantage of poor people.<br />Aid needs to be channelled through effective mechanisms, such as those linked to the<br />poverty reduction strategies of governments, especially where economic growth and rural<br />poverty are being targeted. For Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member<br />countries, this implies substantial, long-term commitments and a more harmonised<br />approach to aid investment. For national governments it implies policies, developed with<br />the participation of the poor, that give priority to the reduction of poverty and are<br />conducive to the promotion of pro-poor growth.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-50340314213196166442008-04-25T21:58:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:59:10.346-07:00Implications for institutions<div style="text-align: justify;">One of the main constraints to pro-poor growth through agriculture has been the weak<br />link between poor rural households and public and private institutions for research,<br />extension, marketing and finance. The most effective roles for government and the private<br />sector are not well understood. The private sector has been slow to fill the gaps left behind<br />when public sector support was withdrawn. In many cases, institutional arrangements<br />limit the extent to which poor people can be engaged. Inappropriate service locations and<br />staff capabilities, coupled with the low education levels and meagre assets of producers<br />and landless labourers, continue to result in widespread and deeply embedded failures to<br />address the problems of poorer households.<br />Overcoming these constraints requires a fundamental realignment of the institutions<br />that provide agriculture-related services to poor rural households. It requires innovative<br />institutional arrangements, including partnerships among public, private and civil society<br />organisations. It requires appropriate services for poorer men and women and for more<br />market-oriented producers. These new arrangements must be matched with processes<br />that encourage staff within those organisations to work with poor households and to build<br />their capacities to do this work. The capacities of agricultural producers, both individual<br />and collective, must also be built through educational and social processes that can enable<br />them to shape the nature and quality of services they receive. Meeting this challenge of<br />institutional reform will require substantial commitments and resources from the public<br />sector.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-55829912732660490452008-04-25T21:50:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:51:10.816-07:00Implications for policy<div style="text-align: justify;">Economic transformation reduces the direct opportunities for poor people in primary<br />production agriculture but also increases the opportunity for them elsewhere in the<br />economy, including agricultural and non-agricultural industries and services. If policy is to<br />have a much greater impact on poverty, it needs to address the needs of poor people,<br />including those who have to move out of agricultural production. Policy, to be genuinely<br />pro-poor, should at a minimum not constrain the access of poor people to the new<br />opportunities – and should preferably make it easier for them to participate in those<br />opportunities, be they rural or urban based. It must also have an integrated gender<br />perspective.<br />In the real world the transformation from a system wholly dependent on lowproductivity<br />agricultural production to one that is diverse and dynamic and that presents<br />broader opportunities to poor people is not entirely virtuous. It is a process with serious<br />imperfections. The main one is that poverty persists in communities with poor market<br />access, poor natural resource endowments and little political and social capital. Many<br />people remain vulnerable to shocks of various kinds, and their livelihoods are exposed to<br />high levels of risk. So for policy to be pro-poor, it should take account of the needs of people<br />left behind. Again, this does not mean that agricultural policy should become social policy.<br />It strongly suggests, however, that policy should be consistent with economic and social<br />objectives and, where possible, address them both directly.<br />Within agriculture, policies are needed to ensure that small producers and the<br />landless have a viable future. Unlike the rich countries, which can afford to subsidise their<br />small producers, the preponderance of small production units in most developing<br />countries requires that, net of the costs of assisting them, those units add to national<br />economic growth, not detract from it. Needed therefore are public policies and investments<br />that promote small producers and are tailored to the local context.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-62471547536331365142008-04-25T21:46:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:48:39.854-07:00What’s needed for pro-poor growth in agriculture? The new agenda<div style="text-align: justify;">This report identifies three priority actions at the core of the new agenda that should<br />guide policy formulation, institutional development and investments for and by the poor:<br />● Enhancing agricultural sector productivity and market opportunities (Chapter 2).<br />● Promoting diversified livelihoods (Chapter 3).<br />● Reducing risk and vulnerability (Chapter 4).<br />The potential for enhanced agricultural sector productivity to stimulate pro-poor<br />growth has been demonstrated most vividly in the Green Revolution, but there has been a<br />failure to realise this potential more widely through existing policy and market<br />arrangements. Greater harnessing of this potential has to be a central policy objective,<br />especially in areas where the natural resources are available for sustained increases in<br />productivity and in countries at a stage where agriculture can make a significant<br />contribution to economic development. In these countries, small production units<br />predominate and account for a large share of employment. A focus on enhancing the<br />productivity of small producers is thus justified because of the greater impact on poverty<br />and growth generated through increases in employment.<br />It has been realised for some time that rural people do not specialise in crop<br />production, fishing, forest management or livestock-rearing to the exclusion of other<br />sources of income. Instead, they combine a range of activities and occupations to build a<br />diverse portfolio of activities. One reason for this diversification is the need to address the<br />inherent risk and vulnerability of an activity that is dependent on the vagaries of nature<br />and is thus inherently risky. Although few longitudinal studies exist, there is general<br />agreement among researchers that the diversification of occupations and the proportion of<br />income from sources outside the household’s agricultural production unit are increasing.<br />The importance of non-production unit occupations for reducing poverty may be<br />recognised by governments and donors, but policy has not reflected it. Why? Perhaps<br />because it is widely believed that agricultural growth is the most important driver of the<br />rural economy. The focus has thus remained on increasing producer incomes, with<br />supplementary efforts to enhance skills and improve access to credit and productive<br />assets.<br />The neglect of the largely unrecognised potential in input enterprises and postharvest<br />agricultural enterprises continues to hinder the development of policies and<br />supports to encourage and expand the agricultural industries and services that add value<br />to produce. There is substantial scope to marry improved production-unit productivity and<br />market access with agricultural enterprises that contributes to the local and national<br />economy through increased employment and new investments.<br />Recent research on rural livelihoods shows, however, that many diversified<br />occupations are closely linked to urban areas. The synergy between agricultural sector<br />growth and urban-based enterprises is a key to local economic development and, at a<br />wider level, to pro-poor growth (Tacoli, 2004). It is also becoming more apparent that many<br />diversified occupations, especially those pursued by people in marginal areas, are situated<br />in urban locations – and given the poor prospects for substantial increases in household<br />incomes in these marginal areas, those occupations are providing an important livelihood<br />source.<br />There is also growing awareness of the problems facing those in many marginal areas<br />– where mutually reinforcing environmental, physical, institutional, social and political<br />factors trap them in low-productivity agricultural production and low levels of<br />diversification, with few prospects for exiting poverty. But policies remain ill-informed<br />about such constraints – and are ill-equipped to support multi-locational livelihoods.<br />Indeed, governments often discourage mobility and informal activities, vital for livelihood<br />diversification, in an effort to control urban “explosions”.<br />What is needed, therefore, is a broader entry point for poverty reduction, one tailored<br />to the diversity of livelihoods, not just to increasing the incomes of production units. Better<br />understanding is needed of the market and non-market constraints facing the poor in rural<br />areas – and of how greater mobility and stronger rural-urban links can reduce poverty and<br />promote regional development (Box 1.4).<br />While strategies for diversified incomes enable both men and women to increase their<br />income, they may also create problematic livelihood situations. Many who cannot obtain a<br />livelihood from their land must migrate to cities or to other rural areas for seasonal work.<br />The needs and realities of migrant women and men, seasonally employed in the<br />agricultural sector, need to be addressed, and gender-sensitive services need to be adapted<br />to their livelihood patterns.<br />What’s new in the broader agenda for agriculture<br />Views under the traditional agenda Views under the new agenda<br />Policies, institutions and investments in agriculture Policies, institutions and investments in and for agriculture<br />One rural world Multiple rural worlds<br />National markets National, regional and global markets<br />Production units Livelihood units<br />Agriculture = production Agriculture = agricultural sector (inputs + production +<br />post-harvest + manufacturing)<br />One work location Multiple work locations<br />Single sector approach Multi-sectoral approaches<br />Public sector Public and private sectors<br />Food crops Diverse income streams<br />Growth only Growth that minimises risk and vulnerability<br />Driven by supply Driven by supply and demand<br />Fundamentals Fundamentals<br />Acknowledged Delivered<br />The fundamentals are science, technology, infrastructure, land policy and education, extension and training.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-72900370183984444732008-04-25T21:39:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:43:35.698-07:00Agriculture’s importance for pro-poor growth – the evidence<div style="text-align: justify;">Agriculture accounts for the bulk of employment in developing countries and<br />contributes significantly to national income and export earnings. Given its dominance in<br />the economy, it will remain a primary source of growth and means of poverty reduction for<br />some time. It remains the backbone of the rural economy, and employs the majority of the<br />world’s poor people. The proportion of poor people remains highest in sub-Saharan Africa,<br />where slow economic growth has left millions at the margins of survival. In sub-Saharan<br />Africa alone, more than 314 million people continue to live on less than USD 1 a day. And<br />in most regions poverty remains a largely rural phenomenon.<br />The contribution of primary agricultural activities to the economy of developing<br />countries averages about 13%, ranging from 8% in Latin America and the Caribbean to<br />some 28% in South Asia, with much heterogeneity among countries in the different<br />regions. In addition, “extended agriculture”, which incorporates farm and non-farm<br />agricultural enterprises, contributes a much greater share of GDP – in Latin America, 30%<br />of GDP. As countries develop, primary agriculture’s share in national income declines. For<br />example, the share of agriculture in India’s GDP declined from about 45% in the early 1970s<br />to 27% in 2001. Despite this decline, some 60% of India’s people still depend on agriculture<br />for their livelihood. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture accounts for 20% of GDP, employs<br />67% of the total labour force and is the main source of livelihood for poor people. The World<br />Bank estimates that in African countries women do at least 70% of the agricultural work<br />(Mark Blackden, interview, World Bank, 23 February 2005). Although the share of GDP in<br />agriculture is declining in many countries in the region, it is increasing in others, as<br />agricultural value added rises or non-agricultural sectors shrink<br />At the macro level, growth in agriculture has consistently been shown to be more<br />beneficial to the poor than growth in other sectors. In several South Asian countries<br />poverty reduction through growth in agriculture was higher than that through growth in<br />manufacturing (Warr, 2001). Similarly, for every 1% of growth in agricultural GDP the<br />positive impact on the poorest was greater than that from similar growth in manufacturing<br />or services (Gallup et al., 1997). Such impacts are usually best realised where there is an<br />equitable distribution of assets, particularly land (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 1996). Ruralurban<br />links are also important. Growth in India’s rural sector reduced poverty in both rural<br />and urban areas, while urban growth reduced rural poverty (Datt and Ravallion, 1996).<br />Variations in poverty reduction mirror the variations in per capita agricultural growth.<br />And agricultural growth, particularly the growth of agricultural sector productivity, plays a<br />significant role in poverty-reducing growth (Thirtle et al., 2001). Very few economies around<br />the world have achieved broad-based economic growth without agricultural and rural<br />growth preceding or accompanying it (Mellor, 2000; Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-<br />Lorch, 2001).<br />In Asia the rapid productivity gains of the Green Revolution offered a route out of<br />poverty by increasing incomes and labour rates, lowering rural and urban food prices and<br />generating new upstream and downstream livelihood opportunities. This productivity<br />growth further stimulated and sustained wider economic diversification and<br />transformation beyond agriculture. But in much of sub-Saharan Africa, with a different set<br />of predetermining factors, productivity has stagnated or even fallen (Nkamleu et al., 2003).<br />The multiplier effects of agriculture on the economy are estimated to be in the range<br />of 1.35 to 4.62 (Thirtle et al., 2001), though those for sub-Saharan Africa are at the lower<br />end, with important implications for investment decisions in agriculture there (Box 1.3).<br />Income from agriculture tends to be spent on a range of goods and services at the local or<br />sub-national level, fostering opportunities for local diversification. So, while agriculture<br />remains a primary contributor to growth, particularly in the early stages of development, it<br />cannot function in isolation from the wider economy. It requires a supportive<br />environment, including the removal of factors constraining its growth such as<br />infrastructure. Nor can it drive growth alone – also needed are structural changes that<br />support knock-on effects in local product and labour markets<br />What impact can higher agricultural sector productivity<br />have on reducing poverty?<br />A lot. Consider these numbers:<br />● A 10% increase in crop yields leads to a reduction of between 6% and 10% of people living<br />on less than USD 1 a day (Irz et al., 2001).<br />● The average real income of small farmers in south India rose by 90% and that of landless<br />labourers by 125% between 1973 and 1994 as a result of the Green Revolution (World<br />Bank, 2001).<br />● A 1% increase in agricultural GDP per capita led to a 1.61% gain in the per capita incomes<br />of the lowest fifth of the population in 35 countries (Timmer, 1997).<br />● A 1% increase in labour productivity in agriculture reduced the number of people living<br />on less than USD 1 a day by between 0.6% and 1.2% (Thirtle et al., 2001)<br />A recent companion study to this report, Pro-Poor Growth in the 1990s: Lessons and<br />insights for 14 countries, confirms what agricultural growth, with its strong links to nonagricultural<br />growth, can do to reduce poverty. In the case study countries, most of the<br />reduction in poverty was among households primarily (though not exclusively) engaged in<br />agriculture. This was true even though non-agricultural growth was generally faster and<br />even though agriculture contributed only 10%-30% of GDP. Agricultural growth had its<br />greatest impact when it was driven by the crops that poor farmers cultivated most<br />(World Bank, 2005a).<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-27784528983130573052008-04-25T21:37:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:39:12.963-07:00Understanding the diversity and dynamics of rural livelihoods<div style="text-align: justify;">Devising the right policy environment requires in-depth knowledge of the livelihood<br />strategies of rural households and careful consideration of ways to protect and promote<br />those strategies. It also needs to reflect the large disparities among the many categories of<br />rural households, or “rural worlds”. Consider five:<br />Rural World 1: Large-scale commercial agricultural households and enterprises.<br />Rural World 2: Traditional land holders and enterprises, not internationally<br />competitive.<br />Rural World 3: Subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises.<br />Rural World 4: Landless rural households and micro-enterprises.<br />Rural World 5: Chronically poor rural households, many no longer economically<br />active.<br />These categories are not mutually exclusive, and there will always be important<br />exceptions to the general classifications here. The typology is intended as a guide rather<br />than a rigid framework for differentiating rural households.<br />The interdependencies among these rural worlds are critical to understanding the<br />challenges facing the rural poor and to finding solutions. They deserve close examination –<br />and good understanding of the local rural economy. The main factors in developing this<br />typology include the financial and physical holdings of the household; the access to labour<br />and product markets and to a variety of services needed to sustain livelihoods, including<br />finance, information and infrastructure; the provisions for health care, education, and<br />training and upgrading skills (especially for women); and the social networks that enable<br />households to benefit from their participation in economic, political and social institutions<br />and organisations.<br />Livelihoods in rural areas are complex and diverse, affected in different ways by<br />policies to promote agricultural growth. Policies for effective poverty reduction need to be<br />informed not just by the evidence of agriculture’s contribution to pro-poor growth but by a<br />good understanding of the realities and dynamics of both the agricultural sector and rural<br />livelihoods – and of how poor rural households are constrained or supported by policies<br />and institutions. The challenge for policy makers is to base policies on good understanding<br />of their complexity and diversity.<br />In addition, the feminisation of agricultural work requires a clear gender perspective<br />to be integrated into policies for effective poverty reduction (Box 1.1). Not only are women<br />the mainstay of the agricultural food sector, labour force and food systems – they are also<br />largely responsible for post-harvest activities (CIDA, 2003).<br />Cambodia: Agriculture feminised<br />In Cambodia 65% of the agricultural labour and 75% of fisheries production are in the<br />hands of women. In all, rural women are responsible for 80% of food production. Half the<br />women producers are illiterate or have less than a primary school education; 78% are<br />engaged in subsistence agriculture, compared with 29% for men. In rural areas only 4% of<br />women and 10% of men are in wage employment.<br />Households headed by women are more likely than households headed by men to work<br />in agriculture, yet they are also more likely to be landless or have significantly smaller<br />plots of land. Policies, programmes and budgets for poverty reduction must thus address<br />the situation of Cambodian women.<br />Source: Gender and Development Network and NGO Forum on Cambodia (2004).<br />The rural world typology helps in beginning to understand these systems and<br />dynamics and to develop pro-poor policies (see the spotlight at the end of this chapter). By<br />using a more differentiated analysis based on people’s livelihoods and how these<br />livelihoods are situated in the local agricultural and broader rural economies, the typology<br />makes it clear that poverty is located unevenly across and within rural populations, that<br />agricultural policy affects different groups in different ways and that the actions or<br />activities of one group of rural people can improve or impair the livelihoods of others.<br />This analysis of rural livelihoods in relation to the agricultural sector reveals the rising<br />dependence of many people on sources of support from outside the household’s<br />agricultural production unit, from activities outside the broader agricultural sector and<br />from urban (even regional and global) markets. It also reveals how some rural households<br />have few or no assets for productive activity and are highly vulnerable to all sorts of shocks<br />Defining agriculture<br />Agriculture includes households engaged in farming, herding, livestock production,<br />fishing and aquaculture. Also included are other producers and individuals employed in<br />cultivating and harvesting food resources from salt and fresh water and cultivating trees<br />and shrubs and harvesting non-timber forest products – as well as processors, small-scale<br />traders, managers, extension specialists, researchers, policy makers and others engaged in<br />the food, feed and fibre system and its relationships with natural resources. This system<br />also includes processes and institutions, including markets, that are relevant to the<br />agriculture sector.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-75126556151404167672008-04-25T21:36:00.001-07:002008-04-25T21:36:50.527-07:00Why we Need a New Agenda<div style="text-align: justify;">Throughout history, increases in agricultural sector productivity have contributed<br />greatly to economic growth and the reduction of poverty. The past 30 years have seen<br />global successes in food production lead to an overall decline in world food prices;<br />increased caloric intake; reductions in the percentage of undernourished people; and<br />boosted rates of return to some key investments in agriculture.<br />We know that economic growth is essential for reducing poverty and that agriculture<br />has in many places connected broader economic growth and the rural poor, increasing<br />their productivity and incomes. Those higher rural incomes increase the demand for<br />consumer goods and services, in turn stimulating the rural economy, boosting growth and<br />reducing poverty even further. Agricultural sector growth reduces poverty by harnessing<br />the productive capacity of the poor’s key assets of land and labour, by lowering and<br />stabilising food prices, by providing labour-intensive employment for the poor and by<br />stimulating growth in the rural economy.<br />In recent decades, however, this virtuous set of relationships has been threatened.<br />New global trading conditions have been disadvantageous to poorer producers. Developing<br />countries continue to give high levels of protection to their own markets. Recent policies<br />for economic restructuring have not produced positive results. Gaps opened by the removal<br />of public support to agriculture have not been filled by the private sector. And public<br />investment in agriculture has declined.<br />At the same time, the focus on reducing poverty has sharpened. International donors<br />and national governments are targeting poverty more explicitly, through new and more<br />effective approaches. But these efforts have not yet given enough attention to what<br />economic growth can do to reduce poverty or how agriculture can contribute to that growth.<br />This is the new context for agricultural policy, and a new agriculture agenda is needed<br />to address it. The new agenda must promote investments in higher productivity activities<br />and links to new market opportunities in urban centres and in regional and global markets.<br />In tandem with improved productivity, it must encourage the development of the broader<br />agricultural sector and rural economy, so that the benefits from agriculture can be realised.<br />It must also make it easier for small producers and landless agricultural workers to<br />diversify out of agricultural production. And it must reduce risk and vulnerability across<br />the rural world. In short, there has to be a shift from a traditional sectoral agenda for<br />agricultural production to a broader agenda for the agricultural sector and rural<br />livelihoods.</div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-31038329743483146132008-04-25T21:35:00.001-07:002008-04-25T21:35:55.881-07:00Managing the change process<div style="text-align: justify;">In the real world the transformation from a system wholly dependent on low-productivity<br />agriculture and a weak agricultural sector to one that is diverse and dynamic and that<br />presents broader opportunities to poor people is not entirely virtuous. The main challenge<br />is that poverty persists in communities with poor market access, poor natural resource<br />endowments and little political capital. Many rural households remain vulnerable to<br />shocks of various kinds, and their livelihoods are exposed to high levels of risk. Pro-poor<br />policies must remove and relax the barriers and constraints faced by poor households as<br />well as provide new incentives and support for their sustainable participation in more<br />equal, market based relations and exchanges. This does not mean that policies in and for<br />agriculture should become social policy. But it strongly suggests that economic policy,<br />including agricultural policy, should be consistent with social objectives and, where<br />possible, address them directly.<br />Against this background, donors will need to find ways to work effectively with their<br />partners to promote sustainable, country-driven and programme-based development that<br />recognises the important contribution of agriculture to pro-poor growth. Donors can help<br />build research and institutional capacity to underpin and inform the change processes.<br />They can facilitate the involvement of rural stakeholders in shaping these policies,<br />institutions and investments to ensure that they respond to livelihood needs. They can<br />foster dialogue and support efforts to establish open, participatory monitoring<br />frameworks. And they will need to do this in a way that responds to the partner country’s<br />long term vision for agriculture in a pro-poor growth context.<br /><br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-86773224702592529642008-04-25T21:34:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:35:11.729-07:00Priorities for action in the new agenda<div style="text-align: justify;">Efforts to stimulate agriculturefs role in pro-poor growth should, on the basis of the<br />principles above, be used to guide renewed attention to three priority areas. These are to:<br />œ Enhance agricultural sector productivity and market opportunities.<br />œ Promote diversified livelihoods on and off the farm.<br />œ Reduce risk and vulnerability.<br />Enhancing agricultural sector productivity and improved market<br />opportunitiesc<br />Improving sector productivity and expanding market access is at the core of a more<br />robust agricultural economy. Productivity gains will depend upon a supportive policy<br />environment that enables rural producers to use the resources available to them more<br />efficiently and sustainably. Secure and equitable access to land and water resources,<br />rangelands, fisheries and forests is a key ingredient of this policy environment. The<br />development of rural financial services is equally important to allow for purchases of<br />inputs and equipment in order to increase the productivity of land and labour and<br />stimulate income-generating activities. Productivity gains will also depend upon access to<br />information and technology developments framed by a demand-led and multidisciplinary<br />approach. Market access will depend on improved physical access and reduced<br />transactions costs, particularly through appropriately targeted infrastructure and better<br />transport services. Support for producer associations will enhance capacity to engage in<br />market places dominated by increasingly large food processing and modern food retail<br />industry such as global supermarket chains.<br />Promoting diversified livelihoodsc<br />The connections between the agricultural and non-agricultural rural economies are<br />key drivers of diversified livelihoods. A thriving agriculture sector underpinned by<br />improved productivity will expand the rural economy and influence wages and food<br />security. Traditionally, agricultural policy has focused on increasing agricultural<br />production, neglecting investment in post-harvest enterprises and non-agricultural assets<br />for more diversified rural livelihoods while treating as socially undesirable those<br />household strategies involving movement out of rural areas. To reverse this trend,<br />governments and external partners should improve their understanding of labour markets<br />and migration patterns and incorporate that understanding in national policies; establish<br />functioning land markets, so that people are more able to move to new forms of economic<br />activity; promote entrepreneurship; and tailor investments in infrastructure, education<br />and health services to new livelihood patterns.<br />Reducing risk and vulnerability…<br />Poor households with livelihoods dependent on agricultural production face<br />numerous shocks and stresses, some potentially catastrophic. The level of risk facing poor<br />rural households has risen with increased market exposure linked to globalisation<br />matched by the retrenchment of the state for the direct provision of services such as those<br />provided through state marketing boards, subsidies and price controls. Domestic shocks,<br />such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic, have further weakened the position of many poor<br />households. Reducing levels of risk, where possible, and provision of instruments to reduce<br />vulnerability has to be a central element of pro-poor agriculture policy. This not only<br />provides social protection for poor people, but enables them to undertake new, viable but<br />more risky livelihoods, increase their participation in markets and generate pro-poor<br />economic growth.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-52914755739910929772008-04-25T21:32:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:33:51.034-07:00Principles of the new agenda<div style="text-align: justify;">This report identifies four principles of engagement at the core of the new agenda. These<br />principles are essential in defining how the new agriculture agenda should be promoted,<br />and in how the investment and policy options proposed under the new agenda should be<br />articulated. These principles are:<br />● Adapt approaches to diverse contexts.<br />● Build institutions and empower stakeholders.<br />● Support pro-poor international actions.<br />● Foster country-led partnerships.<br />Adapting approaches to diverse contexts…<br />Current reality in rural areas is defined by a highly diverse range of stakeholders<br />involved in agriculture – with considerable variation in their assets and access to markets<br />and the way institutions promote or constrain their interests. To address the needs of the<br />rural poor, policy needs to be informed by the dynamics in these processes. That, in turn,<br />needs to be based on an understanding of the place of agriculture in the rural economy and<br />in people’s livelihood strategies, in the productive potential of the land and labour involved<br />in agricultural production and the opportunities for agricultural enterprises.<br />A typology of five “rural worlds” can guide policy makers in understanding the diverse<br />rural and agricultural systems and dynamics and respond with appropriate pro-poor<br />policies. These rural world categories are not mutually exclusive. The typology of rural<br />worlds is used throughout this report as a guide rather than a rigid framework for<br />differentiating rural households. By using a more differentiated analysis based on people’s<br />livelihoods, it makes clear that poverty is located unevenly across and within rural<br />populations, that policy in and for agriculture affects different groups in different ways and<br />that the actions of one rural group can improve or impair the livelihoods of others.<br />● Rural World 1 – large-scale commercial agricultural households and enterprises.<br />● Rural World 2 – traditional agricultural households and enterprises, not internationally<br />competitive.<br />● Rural World 3 – subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises.<br />● Rural World 4 – landless rural households and micro-enterprises.<br />● Rural World 5 – chronically poor rural households, many no longer economically active.<br />Local contexts vary in their agro-ecological potential and in the accompanying<br />economic transformation – the contribution of agriculture gradually declines as the<br />economy diversifies. Public policy linked to agriculture should be tailored to a country’s<br />agro-ecological potential and the stage of transformation that it has attained. Policies need<br />to be flexible enough to adapt to success and allow for resources to be transferred to other<br />areas of the economy.<br />Building institutions and empowering stakeholders…<br />Much of the failure of agriculture to achieve its potential is institutional. Support by<br />the state has been unresponsive to the needs of the poor and inefficient in marketing<br />producers’ output, sometimes preventing the natural development of markets for<br />producers. Public institutions need to be strengthened in their capacity to develop an<br />appropriate blend of policies, regulatory frameworks and investments to re-launch the<br />agricultural sector. At the same time, the role of private sector institutions needs to be<br />strengthened to help address a range of problems including: limited access to financial<br />services including credit and risk management instruments, to key inputs such as seed<br />and fertiliser, and to output markets. These problems are often magnified for female<br />producers.<br />A strategy to strengthen institutions must also develop the skills, the capacity, and the<br />organisation of poor rural producers to maximise their input in the policy processes and<br />ensure accountability of policy makers. A major challenge, particularly in public extension<br />and research services, is the capacity of the institutions themselves to deliver clientfocused<br />services for households in Rural Worlds 2 and 3. Years of under-funding and<br />relative neglect have greatly weakened these institutions to deliver in the new agricultural<br />environment, which requires a demand-led rather than supply-led approach.<br />Supporting pro-poor international actions…<br />Three important processes can have major impacts on the successful implementation<br />of the new agenda for agriculture. One is the global trade negotiations to reduce<br />agricultural subsidies. A second is a major scaling up of aid in response to the challenge of<br />meeting the Millennium Development Goals. A third is the multi-donor commitment to<br />improve aid effectiveness, as set out by the Paris Declaration of March 2005. On agriculture<br />specifically, G8 heads agreed to support the New Partnership for Africa’s Development<br />(NEPAD)-inspired, comprehensive set of actions to “raise agricultural productivity,<br />strengthen urban-rural linkages and empower the poor”. The way these processes play out<br />in the short and medium terms will have an important bearing on conditions for enabling<br />pro-poor growth through agriculture.<br />Fostering country-led partnerships…<br />The Paris Declaration calls for an ambitious reform in the way aid is managed and<br />donors should be guided by these principles in helping countries unlock agriculture’s<br />potential contribution to pro-poor growth. National poverty reduction strategies (PRSs), the<br />main point of reference at the country level for operationalising the aid effectiveness<br />agenda, are critical for implementing the new agenda for agriculture. But agriculture and<br />rural development have been neglected in past PRSs, largely due to an inadequate<br />understanding of the agricultural and rural dimensions of poverty. A key challenge is to<br />redress the imbalance in the PRSs – to raise the profile of the productive sectors in general,<br />and of agriculture in particular. More specifically, attention must be given to effective<br />monitoring frameworks in supporting improved decision-making, flexible<br />implementation, and increased accountability. Development processes are the outcome of<br />power, knowledge and information relationships. It is therefore important to promote the<br />participation of all PRS stakeholders, including rural producers and their organisations, in<br />the development of policies and investments with the aim of influencing and eventually<br />re-orienting their implementation.<br /></div>blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2201485596753982382.post-31332447677774830022008-04-25T21:31:00.002-07:002008-04-25T21:32:29.711-07:00The urgency of a new agendaAttention to agriculture in terms of policy commitments and investment levels has<br />declined in both international donor and developing country policies and programmes,<br />despite the demonstrated high rates of return and the reductions in poverty that come<br />from such investments. Yet achieving the internationally agreed poverty reduction targets<br />will depend on establishing higher rates of economic growth, which equates to growth in<br />agricultural sector productivity for the majority of countries where these targets are<br />relevant. And a more robust agriculture sector will need to be framed within a new agenda<br />that not only matches today’s rural and global realities but engages and enables poor<br />households to generate sustainable livelihoods.blogger kuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09625194829486878956noreply@blogger.com0