agriculture

Extending secure property rights

2008-04-25T22:11:00.001-07:00

For most of the rural poor in developing countries, land is the primary means for
generating a livelihood and a main vehicle for investing, accumulating wealth and
transferring it between generations. Because land makes up such a large share of the asset
portfolio of the poor, giving secure property rights to land they already possess can greatly
increase the wealth of poor people who, unlike the rich, cannot afford the (official and
unofficial) fees needed to deal with the formal system.Unequal ownership of land is also a critical factor that creates and maintains
differences between women and men, with consequences for the coming generations. In
Kenya, for example, only 5% of the landowners are women, despite the fact that African
women produce 60%-80% of the continent’s food (Kameri-Mbote and Mubuu, 2002). A
World Bank policy research report, “Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction”,
concludes that the increased control by women over land titles could have “a strong and
immediate effect on the welfare of the next generation and on the level and pace at which
human and physical capital are accumulated” (World Bank, 2003). Ensuring that women
have secure rights to land is thus critical in many respects, including the challenges arising
in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, where the absence of secure land tenure for
women who have lost their husbands has been shown to be a key reason for costly conflict
and additional hardship.
Secure title to land not only promotes wealth creation but can also enhance security.
China illustrates that broad-based land access can provide a basic social safety net at a cost
much below alternative government programmes, allowing government to spend scarce
resources on productive infrastructure instead of safety nets. Having their basic
subsistence ensured is likely to have allowed Chinese households to take on greater risks
in non-agricultural businesses. With policies to foster lease markets for land, this also
contributed significantly to a vibrant rural economy.

Improving market access

2008-04-25T22:11:00.000-07:00

Productivity gains can mean little without expanded access to markets. Market
structures in many rural regions of the developing world are very weak, so the allocative
efficiencies that markets achieve in fast-growing sectors of their economies do not
materialise. Instead, undeveloped market demand for outputs discourages producers from
raising production, while the consequent failures of incomes to rise in rural areas deters
private traders and rural enterprises from entering and doing business. A vicious cycle. In
the absence of functioning markets, rural areas remain trapped in a subsistence economy
in which neither the narrow agricultural production sector nor the wider rural economy
(both of which generate off-farm employment opportunities) can grow.
In the past many governments tried to address agricultural market failures in rural
areas by creating state-managed organisations, such as marketing boards. Most of these
interventions proved to be costly failures, often enabling widespread corruption to take
hold to rural economies, and are becoming less and less common. The problems associated
with weak markets remain, however, and new efforts are required if the agricultural sector
is to spark sustained and rapid growth in poor countries. These efforts should focus on
creating effective markets through improving the enabling conditions for wider private
sector participation. Removing restrictions on the movement, sale and purchase of
agricultural products is one example where changes are needed.
Insecure property rights, weak financial services and poor infrastructure are three
of the most common barriers to more efficient rural markets, often to the notable
disadvantage of women. There is mounting evidence for attention to all three areas to
transform stagnating rural areas.

Diversifying outputs

2008-04-25T22:10:00.002-07:00

The diversification of outputs involves a change in primary production or household
post-harvest processing to capture more value added. This category spans a wide range
of technological options from household processing of cassava roots – to making milk
products to sell to passers by – to organic farming and the production of fruits or poultry to
supply global supermarket chains. Often market demands make this category of
technology better suited to well resourced producers in Rural Worlds 1 and 2, who can
more easily meet demands for volume, quality and timeliness of deliveries. Others in Rural
World 2 as well as in Rural World 3 are likely to need finance and extensive institutional
support to diversify, organise marketing and maintain technical quality.
Risks and financing needs for diversification will tend to be higher than those for
merely upgrading production technology for existing staples. Careful prior assessments of
markets and their needs, good information systems and ready rural access are other
prerequisites for successful diversification. But for many small producers for whom the
returns from staple crop production are no longer sufficient to earn a living, diversifying
outputs may be the only technical strategy that will allow them to stay on the land.

Managing natural resources better

2008-04-25T22:10:00.001-07:00

Natural resource management practices typically raise the productivity of household
labour through changes in agricultural practices, such as managing water, soils and crop
residues to augment in situ capture and retention of rainfall and raise land productivity or
controlling pests and weeds by exploiting natural biological processes. Approaches such as
dry-land cultivation, water harvesting and flood recession farming as well as
dissemination of demand management techniques such as irrigation water conservation
and waste water reuse can help address the needs of poor agricultural households while
promoting sustainable use of water. Genetic improvements can play an important part in
these efforts, but often do more to reduce risks by stabilising and diversifying production
rather than maximising yield.
This category of technology is knowledge-intensive and often location-specific. With
less stress on maximising yields, it seeks to lower risks and unit costs of output. It can be a
first technology for many agricultural households in Rural World 3 that retain some usable
land and labour but have no financial reserves, as well as for the financially vulnerable in
Rural World 2. It can help women, the old and households with labour forces depleted by
migration or HIV/AIDS to increase household food production on the small parcels of land
they have retained. Developing the needed natural resource management technologies will
require investments in science and technology, and disseminating existing technology will
require widely distributed and skilled technical support on the ground.
Integrated water resource management can support the sustainable and equitable use
of water. An integrated water policy relies on improved planning and legal frameworks,
analysis of supply and demand, improved education and sector co-ordination.
Co-ordination and arbitration are essential in conflicts arising due to increasing water
scarcity, especially for cross-border resources where only supra-national or external bodies
can provide a structure for dialogue. Co-ordination also improves water governance by
enhancing decision makers’ accountability for resource development and management.
Policy must be tailored to increase the efficiency of natural resource management by
incorporating knowledge from women and promoting greater participation of women
stakeholders. Erosion, drought, floods, desertification and pollution mean that women find
it harder to collect food, fuel and water. Poor sanitation has implications for health and the
schooling of girls and women. In addition, women often have more knowledge about the
ecosystems, but are often not included in natural resource management and
environmental protection.

Intensifying input-based production

2008-04-25T22:09:00.000-07:00

Intensifying input-based production, centred on seed varieties with higher productive
potential and the fertilisers and pesticides to realise these potentials, was the focal point
of the Green Revolution in Asia. Similar efforts, expanded to include livestock breeds and
associated veterinary drugs and compound feeds, hold great potential for rural households
in Rural Worlds 1, 2 or 3. This is particularly true in areas with good agro-ecological
resources, low climatic risks, good access to input suppliers and to markets.
Most of the opportunities for intensifying input-based production have already been
exploited, however, and new opportunities will require much improved dissemination
of existing intensification technologies, significant investments in infrastructure
programmes and functioning input markets. Input-based production intensification can
also degrade land, which over time limits the yield responses. Furthermore, in Africa far
fewer producers have irrigation, resource endowments are often too poor, and risks are too
high for input-based intensification to be relevant to more than a few producers in
Rural Worlds 1 and 2.
Producers and processors in Rural World 1, also in some cases in Rural World 2,
already benefit from advanced technologies based on the recent discoveries of molecular
biology and genetic manipulation. However, much of this technology remains primarily
aimed at users in developed countries and has been financed by multinational companies.
For the originators of the technology, research and development geared to the needs of the
rural poor in developing countries are not considered high return investments. Application
of some of the principles of these advanced technologies to the needs of poorer producers
in Rural Worlds 2, 3 and 4 could nevertheless do much to raise their productivity and
reduce risks. For instance, tissue culture can generate virus-free, and hence more
productive, stocks of perennial crops that are important to the survival strategies of poor
households.

Why should we care about the future of small-scale agriculture?

2008-04-25T22:08:00.002-07:00

The efficiency of smaller production units in most developing countries is demonstrated
by an impressive body of empirical studies showing an inverse relationship between unit
size and land productivity (Heltberg, 1998). Moreover, small producers often achieve higher
land productivity with lower capital intensities than large units. These are important
efficiency advantages in many poor countries where land and capital are scarce relative to
labour.
The greater land productivity of small units stems from their greater abundance of
household labour per hectare cultivated. Household workers are typically more motivated
than hired workers are, and they provide higher quality and self-supervising labour. They
also tend to think in terms of whole jobs or livelihoods rather than hours worked, and are
less driven by wage rates at the margin than hired workers. Small producers exploit labourusing
technologies that increase yields (hence land productivity), and they use labourintensive
methods rather than capital-intensive machines. As a result, their land and
capital productivities are higher and their labour productivity is typically lower than that
of large production units. This is a strength in labour-surplus economies, but it becomes a
weakness for the long-term viability of small-scale production as countries get richer and
labour becomes more expensive.
In poor, labour-abundant economies, small producers are not only more efficient but
they also account for large shares of the rural and total poor, so small production unit
development can be win-win for growth and poverty reduction. Asia’s Green Revolution
showed how agricultural growth that reaches large numbers of small units could
transform rural economies and raise enormous numbers of people out of poverty
(Rosegrant and Hazell, 2000). Recent studies show that a more egalitarian distribution of
land not only leads to higher economic growth but also helps ensure that the growth
achieved is more beneficial to the poor (Deininger and Squire, 1998; Ravallion and
Datt, 2002). Small producers also contribute to greater food security, particularly in
subsistence agriculture and in backward areas where locally produced foods avoid the high
transport and marketing costs associated with many purchased foods.
Small producer households have more favourable expenditure patterns for promoting
growth of the local rural economy, including rural towns. They spend higher shares of
incremental income on rural non-tradables than large production units (Mellor, 1976;
Hazell and Roell, 1983), thereby creating additional demand for the many labour-intensive
goods and services that are produced in local villages and towns. These demand-driven
growth links provide greater income-earning opportunities for small producers an
landless workers.

Increasing the agricultural sector’s productivity

2008-04-25T22:08:00.001-07:00

The productive potential of agriculture is highly varied and depends on the natural
endowment, geographical location, links to the rest of the economy and social dimensions
of the population. But the general failure in recent decades to achieve sustained rates of
agricultural sector productivity and the pro-poor growth linked to it, especially in sub-
Saharan Africa, can be put down to inappropriate policies; inadequate institutions and
services; failures to invest in appropriate infrastructure; and failures to invest in the
development of the human, social and natural capital that agricultural households need to
achieve higher productivity.
Governments need to make choices in allocating resources for the support of
agriculture. There is a strong argument to prioritise such support to producers and
enterprises of Rural Worlds 2 and 3, where the stage of economic development of a country
and the availability and relative cost of labour mean that there would be a greater impact
on poverty from government support (Box 2.1). For poorer countries the attraction of small
production units lies in their economic efficiency relative to larger units. They can create
large amounts of productive employment, reduce rural poverty, support a more vibrant
rural economy and help reduce rural-urban migration.
The very limited capacity of the vast majority of poor rural households to access,
analyse and utilise new knowledge on improved practices is a binding constraint to
enhanced productivity. Research, development and information services that address this
constraint have been weakened by years of under-funding and by failures of institutions to
respond in relevant ways to the needs of agricultural producers, especially those in Rural
Worlds 2 and 3 (IFAD, 2004). As a result, producers who lack the resources to obtain it on
their own have not had access to the information and technologies that would enable them
to adopt improved production strategies and increase the income and well-being of their
households.
Pro-poor strategies for agricultural research and its dissemination need to be tailored
to the needs of the rural worlds and be aware of the broad range of factors affecting their
adoption of new technology. Research strategies need to incorporate knowledge from local
actors, and an institutional framework based on much greater participation of a wide range
of stakeholders needs to be developed. Innovative approaches to the delivery of associated
information services, including public, private and civil society actors, also need to be
developed.
In identifying the constraints to productivity enhancement in the different rural
worlds it is important to recognise that both land and labour productivity are central to
pro-poor growth. In the early stages of development, land productivity is most critical in
order to create additional employment opportunities in agricultural production. In the later
stages, labour productivity increases in importance as off farm wage rates rise but
demands for agricultural workers remain high. Three broad categories of technology are
available to increase the productivity of agricultural households: intensifying input-based
production, managing natural resources better, and diversifying outputs in primary
production or household post-harvest processing to capture more value added.

Framing agriculture’s contribution to pro-poor growth in the new context

2008-04-25T22:07:00.001-07:00

Agricultural sector productivity gains and market access lie at the core of a more
robust agricultural economy and of pro-poor growth. Endeavours to increase sector
productivity and expand market access must recognise from the outset, however, that the
challenges facing today’s rural households are much different from those confronted by
the Green Revolution producers who recorded rapid and sustained gains only two or three
decades ago. Many of today’s poorest producers live in less favoured or fragile regions,
whose agricultural potential is being jeopardised by degradation of the natural resource
base and constrained by inadequate attention to infrastructure needs.
In sub-Saharan Africa, where many of the poorest rural households are located, there
is no dominant food-production system. Instead, a wide variety of production systems
serve as the livelihood foundation for agricultural communities. The demography of these
and many other rural communities is also changing rapidly, as agriculture is increasingly
becoming feminised through the effects of migration and the impacts of HIV/AIDS. Many
producers lack access to key inputs and services, including credit and extension. Moreover,
many small producers now compete in markets that are much more demanding in quality
and food safety and distorted by OECD agricultural subsidies and the trade barriers of
developing countries.
In many poor countries, especially in Africa, there still is excellent growth potential for
small producers in the food staples sector (cereals, roots and tubers and traditional
livestock products). For Africa as a whole, the consumption of these foods accounts for the
lion’s share of agricultural output and is projected to double by 2015. This will add another
USD 50 billion to demand (in 1996-2000 prices). Moreover, with more commercialisation
and urbanisation, much of this added demand will translate into market transactions, not
just additional household consumption.
No other agricultural markets offer growth potential on this scale to reach huge
numbers of Africa’s rural poor. Many small producers could double or triple their incomes
if they could capture a large share of this market growth. Simulations with economy-wide
models at the International Food Policy Research Institute confirm this conjecture. For
Ethiopia (a poor and food-deficit country) the fastest way to reduce poverty by 2015 is
through productivity growth in food staples. This strategy outperforms a strategy built
around increasing the production of high-value products (Hazell, 2004). If small producers
are to capture a fair share of this growth in food staples, particularly in Africa, they will
have to become more competitive, especially against cheap food imports from abroad.
In many middle and higher income countries in Asia and Latin America, food staple
market opportunities are more constrained, with demand growth linked more to growth in
livestock feed or export opportunities than to domestic human consumption. In these
cases small producers need urgently to diversify into higher value products that face much
better demand prospects. A challenge for this “new” high-value agriculture is to make it
pro-poor. Left to market forces alone, the major beneficiaries of the new high-value
agriculture will mostly be the larger and commercially oriented producers and producers
well connected to roads and markets. The majority of small producers are likely to get left
behind. Fortunately, there is great opportunity to guide the new high-value agriculture so
that small producers and even many backward regions can participate.
Influence in society, both in official organisations and informal village associations, is
distributed along gender lines. Hence policy needs to consider women’s access to, and
interaction with, informal and formal networks, marketing organisations and
administrations – as well as training for women producers and entrepreneurs to learn
about and adapt to new economic structures and marketing.

Increasing productivity and improving market access

2008-04-25T22:06:00.001-07:00

Successful pro-poor growth strategies led by agriculture depend on increased
agricultural sector productivity and improved access to domestic, regional and global
markets. But there is potential for further production unit – based productivity growth,
which has not been fully exploited under existing policy and market arrangements.
Harnessing this potential will immediately improve conditions for poor rural households –
either directly through market prices or indirectly through labour markets.
The weak human capacity of producer households and inappropriate and risky
technologies can undermine efforts to achieve higher levels of productivity and diversify
production into higher value products. Insecure and limited access to land, water and
finance compound these weaknesses. Sustained and targeted policies that address these
challenges and take account of local contexts can help realise agricultural households’
production potential. Delivering such policies requires combined and coordinated efforts
by public, private and civil society organisations.
Market access is critical for agriculture to become the main driver of pro-poor growth.
Households and firms in Rural Worlds 1 and 2 rely heavily on access to markets for their
agricultural production and on the labour from Rural Worlds 3 and 4 to produce surpluses.
Reasons for poor market access include the global “rules of the game” – restrictions,
standards and subsidies of wealthy states – down to local-level factors. They also include
the poor organisation and influence of producers, weak transport and communications
infrastructure and limited market information. Addressing these constraints requires
policy shifts at the regional and global levels – and substantial investment in the transport
infrastructure to enable produce to move from production units to the marketplace.
Strengthening social capital, in such forms as producer organisations, can ensure that
agricultural households have the ability to negotiate in the marketplace and secure fairer
prices for their products.
Agricultural households in Rural Worlds 2 and 3 can improve their incomes through
enhanced engagement with the market place underpinned by an ability to increase
productivity in a sustainable way. Commercial producers and firms in Rural World 1
provide employment opportunities for households in Rural Worlds 3 and 4 and their
pioneering in regional and global markets open future opportunities to producers in Rural
Worlds 2 and 3. These commercial agricultural businesses can be viewed as “engines of
growth” within the wider rural economy, stimulating and sustaining the labour market and
opening commodity markets.

chronically poor rural households, many no longer

2008-04-25T22:05:00.000-07:00

Rural World 5 households are chronically poor. Most have sold off or been stripped of
their asset holdings during periods of crisis. Remittances from relatives, community safety
nets and government transfers are vital to their sustenance. As a result of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, many more households are facing this precarious situation. Entrenched gender
inequalities exacerbate this problem. Social exclusion often typifies the relationship of
Rural World 5 to the larger community. Cash and in-kind transfer schemes will be critical
for this group for some time.

landless rural households and micro-enterprises

2008-04-25T22:04:00.002-07:00

Rural World 4 households are landless, frequently headed by women, with little access
to productive resources other than their own labour. Sharecropping or working as
agricultural labourers for better-off households in their communities is perhaps the most
secure livelihood option for many of them. For others, migrating to economic centres on a
daily, seasonal or even permanent basis is their best hope for survival. But their low
education levels are a major barrier to migrating out of poverty.
Community ties, the glue in this group’s socioeconomic sphere, can be an important
asset in seeking out alternative livelihood options. But participation in more influential
economic and political networks is not common. As for Rural World 3, the fortunes of Rural
World 4 rely on Rural Worlds 1 and 2 for employment and income-earning opportunities.

subsistence agricultural households and micro-enterprises

2008-04-25T22:04:00.001-07:00

Rural World 3 households – fisherman, pastoralists, smallholders and associated
micro-enterprises – are survivalist. Food security is their main concern, and their small
production units are almost totally dedicated to home consumption. Their assets are
poorly developed, and they have very limited access to services (credit) that would enable
them to increase the returns to their assets. Their ability to manage risk and associated
vulnerability is limited to informal means, thus severely constraining their ability to take
on higher risk, higher return livelihood opportunities. Many live in fragile ecosystems or
less favoured regions and depend on off-farm employment for a significant percentage of
their livelihood. This group embraces many women and female-headed households, who
are among the poorest and most exposed in rural areas. The social sphere of Rural
World 3 rarely extends beyond local communities, and their voice is almost unheard in the
broader socioeconomic and political affairs shaping their lives. The economic fortunes of
Rural Worlds 1 and 2 greatly affect Rural World 3’s employment and income-earning
opportunities, and sustained periods of growth give some the option of leaving subsistence
production altogether.

traditional landholders and enterprises, not internationally

2008-04-25T22:01:00.000-07:00

Rural World 2 accounts for a substantial number of rural households and agricultural
firms in the developing world. The one word that most aptly characterises them is
“traditional”. They are frequently part of the local elite but have little influence at the
national level. They have sizable landholdings often devoted to both commercial and
subsistence agriculture. They previously had access to basic services, such as finance, but
with the advent of liberalisation and the consequent withdrawal of the state from a direct
role in agriculture, the availability of these services declined rapidly. Access to formal risk
management instruments is limited.
Rural World 2 producers have few ties (if any) to the important agribusiness supply
chains. Their traditional orientation, embedded in local networks, is becoming less
appropriate as national and international interdependencies reshape rural societies
throughout the developing world. Some researchers argue that with better access to
improved technologies and infrastructure services, Rural World 2 producers could regain
some of their competitiveness, particularly in food staples. The more entrepreneurial
members of this group are learning from their Rural World 1 neighbours and becoming
more commercial. They are also benefiting from investments in services directed primarily
at Rural World 1, such as improved transport systems.

large-scale commercial agricultural households and

2008-04-25T22:00:00.001-07:00

Rural World 1 households and enterprises engaged in high-value, export-oriented
agriculture, make up a very small minority of rural households and firms in the developing
world. In addition to their land and other holdings, producers and firms in this category
have direct access to finance, risk management instruments, information and
infrastructure necessary to remain competitive in their business operations. Most have an
influential voice in national policies and institutions affecting their enterprises and,
perhaps even more important, close ties to buyer-driven value chains associated with
global agriculture. Rural World 1 producers and firms are considered to be important
sources of employment because they depend on inexpensive labour and reliable contract
farming agreements to ensure a timely supply of quality produce.
The economic power of this group enables them to influence the political affairs of
their countries. They often use this influence to shape public policies that favour their
interests and to steer public expenditures to investment priorities that meet their needs.
They are well positioned to meet the strict new regulations imposed by importing nations
and by retail buyers expanding operations in regional and national markets.

Implications for investments

2008-04-25T21:59:00.001-07:00

Many poor rural households suffer from “ecological poverty”, their livelihoods
constrained by the impoverishment of the natural resources they depend on. Investing in
natural capital can be a central part of poverty reduction strategies addressing the needs of
poor rural households. These investments must be coupled with efforts to ensure that the
poor obtain a fair share of the benefits generated by the natural assets they already own
and manage. And greater attention must be devoted to sound stewardship of “open access”
environmental resources, often appropriated by the more economically powerful in
society, to the disadvantage of poor people.
Aid needs to be channelled through effective mechanisms, such as those linked to the
poverty reduction strategies of governments, especially where economic growth and rural
poverty are being targeted. For Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member
countries, this implies substantial, long-term commitments and a more harmonised
approach to aid investment. For national governments it implies policies, developed with
the participation of the poor, that give priority to the reduction of poverty and are
conducive to the promotion of pro-poor growth.

Implications for institutions

2008-04-25T21:58:00.000-07:00

One of the main constraints to pro-poor growth through agriculture has been the weak
link between poor rural households and public and private institutions for research,
extension, marketing and finance. The most effective roles for government and the private
sector are not well understood. The private sector has been slow to fill the gaps left behind
when public sector support was withdrawn. In many cases, institutional arrangements
limit the extent to which poor people can be engaged. Inappropriate service locations and
staff capabilities, coupled with the low education levels and meagre assets of producers
and landless labourers, continue to result in widespread and deeply embedded failures to
address the problems of poorer households.
Overcoming these constraints requires a fundamental realignment of the institutions
that provide agriculture-related services to poor rural households. It requires innovative
institutional arrangements, including partnerships among public, private and civil society
organisations. It requires appropriate services for poorer men and women and for more
market-oriented producers. These new arrangements must be matched with processes
that encourage staff within those organisations to work with poor households and to build
their capacities to do this work. The capacities of agricultural producers, both individual
and collective, must also be built through educational and social processes that can enable
them to shape the nature and quality of services they receive. Meeting this challenge of
institutional reform will require substantial commitments and resources from the public
sector.

Implications for policy

2008-04-25T21:50:00.000-07:00

Economic transformation reduces the direct opportunities for poor people in primary
production agriculture but also increases the opportunity for them elsewhere in the
economy, including agricultural and non-agricultural industries and services. If policy is to
have a much greater impact on poverty, it needs to address the needs of poor people,
including those who have to move out of agricultural production. Policy, to be genuinely
pro-poor, should at a minimum not constrain the access of poor people to the new
opportunities – and should preferably make it easier for them to participate in those
opportunities, be they rural or urban based. It must also have an integrated gender
perspective.
In the real world the transformation from a system wholly dependent on lowproductivity
agricultural production to one that is diverse and dynamic and that presents
broader opportunities to poor people is not entirely virtuous. It is a process with serious
imperfections. The main one is that poverty persists in communities with poor market
access, poor natural resource endowments and little political and social capital. Many
people remain vulnerable to shocks of various kinds, and their livelihoods are exposed to
high levels of risk. So for policy to be pro-poor, it should take account of the needs of people
left behind. Again, this does not mean that agricultural policy should become social policy.
It strongly suggests, however, that policy should be consistent with economic and social
objectives and, where possible, address them both directly.
Within agriculture, policies are needed to ensure that small producers and the
landless have a viable future. Unlike the rich countries, which can afford to subsidise their
small producers, the preponderance of small production units in most developing
countries requires that, net of the costs of assisting them, those units add to national
economic growth, not detract from it. Needed therefore are public policies and investments
that promote small producers and are tailored to the local context.

What’s needed for pro-poor growth in agriculture? The new agenda

2008-04-25T21:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Agriculture’s importance for pro-poor growth – the evidence

2008-04-25T21:39:00.000-07:00

Agriculture accounts for the bulk of employment in developing countries and
contributes significantly to national income and export earnings. Given its dominance in
the economy, it will remain a primary source of growth and means of poverty reduction for
some time. It remains the backbone of the rural economy, and employs the majority of the
world’s poor people. The proportion of poor people remains highest in sub-Saharan Africa,
where slow economic growth has left millions at the margins of survival. In sub-Saharan
Africa alone, more than 314 million people continue to live on less than USD 1 a day. And
in most regions poverty remains a largely rural phenomenon.
The contribution of primary agricultural activities to the economy of developing
countries averages about 13%, ranging from 8% in Latin America and the Caribbean to
some 28% in South Asia, with much heterogeneity among countries in the different
regions. In addition, “extended agriculture”, which incorporates farm and non-farm
agricultural enterprises, contributes a much greater share of GDP – in Latin America, 30%
of GDP. As countries develop, primary agriculture’s share in national income declines. For
example, the share of agriculture in India’s GDP declined from about 45% in the early 1970s
to 27% in 2001. Despite this decline, some 60% of India’s people still depend on agriculture
for their livelihood. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture accounts for 20% of GDP, employs
67% of the total labour force and is the main source of livelihood for poor people. The World
Bank estimates that in African countries women do at least 70% of the agricultural work
(Mark Blackden, interview, World Bank, 23 February 2005). Although the share of GDP in
agriculture is declining in many countries in the region, it is increasing in others, as
agricultural value added rises or non-agricultural sectors shrink
At the macro level, growth in agriculture has consistently been shown to be more
beneficial to the poor than growth in other sectors. In several South Asian countries
poverty reduction through growth in agriculture was higher than that through growth in
manufacturing (Warr, 2001). Similarly, for every 1% of growth in agricultural GDP the
positive impact on the poorest was greater than that from similar growth in manufacturing
or services (Gallup et al., 1997). Such impacts are usually best realised where there is an
equitable distribution of assets, particularly land (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 1996). Ruralurban
links are also important. Growth in India’s rural sector reduced poverty in both rural
and urban areas, while urban growth reduced rural poverty (Datt and Ravallion, 1996).
Variations in poverty reduction mirror the variations in per capita agricultural growth.
And agricultural growth, particularly the growth of agricultural sector productivity, plays a
significant role in poverty-reducing growth (Thirtle et al., 2001). Very few economies around
the world have achieved broad-based economic growth without agricultural and rural
growth preceding or accompanying it (Mellor, 2000; Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-
Lorch, 2001).
In Asia the rapid productivity gains of the Green Revolution offered a route out of
poverty by increasing incomes and labour rates, lowering rural and urban food prices and
generating new upstream and downstream livelihood opportunities. This productivity
growth further stimulated and sustained wider economic diversification and
transformation beyond agriculture. But in much of sub-Saharan Africa, with a different set
of predetermining factors, productivity has stagnated or even fallen (Nkamleu et al., 2003).
The multiplier effects of agriculture on the economy are estimated to be in the range
of 1.35 to 4.62 (Thirtle et al., 2001), though those for sub-Saharan Africa are at the lower
end, with important implications for investment decisions in agriculture there (Box 1.3).
Income from agriculture tends to be spent on a range of goods and services at the local or
sub-national level, fostering opportunities for local diversification. So, while agriculture
remains a primary contributor to growth, particularly in the early stages of development, it
cannot function in isolation from the wider economy. It requires a supportive
environment, including the removal of factors constraining its growth such as
infrastructure. Nor can it drive growth alone – also needed are structural changes that
support knock-on effects in local product and labour markets
What impact can higher agricultural sector productivity
have on reducing poverty?
A lot. Consider these numbers:
● A 10% increase in crop yields leads to a reduction of between 6% and 10% of people living
on less than USD 1 a day (Irz et al., 2001).
● The average real income of small farmers in south India rose by 90% and that of landless
labourers by 125% between 1973 and 1994 as a result of the Green Revolution (World
Bank, 2001).
● A 1% increase in agricultural GDP per capita led to a 1.61% gain in the per capita incomes
of the lowest fifth of the population in 35 countries (Timmer, 1997).
● A 1% increase in labour productivity in agriculture reduced the number of people living
on less than USD 1 a day by between 0.6% and 1.2% (Thirtle et al., 2001)
A recent companion study to this report, Pro-Poor Growth in the 1990s: Lessons and
insights for 14 countries, confirms what agricultural growth, with its strong links to nonagricultural
growth, can do to reduce poverty. In the case study countries, most of the
reduction in poverty was among households primarily (though not exclusively) engaged in
agriculture. This was true even though non-agricultural growth was generally faster and
even though agriculture contributed only 10%-30% of GDP. Agricultural growth had its
greatest impact when it was driven by the crops that poor farmers cultivated most
(World Bank, 2005a).

Understanding the diversity and dynamics of rural livelihoods

2008-04-25T21:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Why we Need a New Agenda

2008-04-25T21:36:00.001-07:00

Throughout history, increases in agricultural sector productivity have contributed
greatly to economic growth and the reduction of poverty. The past 30 years have seen
global successes in food production lead to an overall decline in world food prices;
increased caloric intake; reductions in the percentage of undernourished people; and
boosted rates of return to some key investments in agriculture.
We know that economic growth is essential for reducing poverty and that agriculture
has in many places connected broader economic growth and the rural poor, increasing
their productivity and incomes. Those higher rural incomes increase the demand for
consumer goods and services, in turn stimulating the rural economy, boosting growth and
reducing poverty even further. Agricultural sector growth reduces poverty by harnessing
the productive capacity of the poor’s key assets of land and labour, by lowering and
stabilising food prices, by providing labour-intensive employment for the poor and by
stimulating growth in the rural economy.
In recent decades, however, this virtuous set of relationships has been threatened.
New global trading conditions have been disadvantageous to poorer producers. Developing
countries continue to give high levels of protection to their own markets. Recent policies
for economic restructuring have not produced positive results. Gaps opened by the removal
of public support to agriculture have not been filled by the private sector. And public
investment in agriculture has declined.
At the same time, the focus on reducing poverty has sharpened. International donors
and national governments are targeting poverty more explicitly, through new and more
effective approaches. But these efforts have not yet given enough attention to what
economic growth can do to reduce poverty or how agriculture can contribute to that growth.
This is the new context for agricultural policy, and a new agriculture agenda is needed
to address it. The new agenda must promote investments in higher productivity activities
and links to new market opportunities in urban centres and in regional and global markets.
In tandem with improved productivity, it must encourage the development of the broader
agricultural sector and rural economy, so that the benefits from agriculture can be realised.
It must also make it easier for small producers and landless agricultural workers to
diversify out of agricultural production. And it must reduce risk and vulnerability across
the rural world. In short, there has to be a shift from a traditional sectoral agenda for
agricultural production to a broader agenda for the agricultural sector and rural
livelihoods.

Managing the change process

2008-04-25T21:35:00.001-07:00

In the real world the transformation from a system wholly dependent on low-productivity
agriculture and a weak agricultural sector to one that is diverse and dynamic and that
presents broader opportunities to poor people is not entirely virtuous. The main challenge
is that poverty persists in communities with poor market access, poor natural resource
endowments and little political capital. Many rural households remain vulnerable to
shocks of various kinds, and their livelihoods are exposed to high levels of risk. Pro-poor
policies must remove and relax the barriers and constraints faced by poor households as
well as provide new incentives and support for their sustainable participation in more
equal, market based relations and exchanges. This does not mean that policies in and for
agriculture should become social policy. But it strongly suggests that economic policy,
including agricultural policy, should be consistent with social objectives and, where
possible, address them directly.
Against this background, donors will need to find ways to work effectively with their
partners to promote sustainable, country-driven and programme-based development that
recognises the important contribution of agriculture to pro-poor growth. Donors can help
build research and institutional capacity to underpin and inform the change processes.
They can facilitate the involvement of rural stakeholders in shaping these policies,
institutions and investments to ensure that they respond to livelihood needs. They can
foster dialogue and support efforts to establish open, participatory monitoring
frameworks. And they will need to do this in a way that responds to the partner country’s
long term vision for agriculture in a pro-poor growth context.

Priorities for action in the new agenda

2008-04-25T21:34:00.000-07:00

Efforts to stimulate agriculturefs role in pro-poor growth should, on the basis of the
principles above, be used to guide renewed attention to three priority areas. These are to:
œ Enhance agricultural sector productivity and market opportunities.
œ Promote diversified livelihoods on and off the farm.
œ Reduce risk and vulnerability.
Enhancing agricultural sector productivity and improved market
opportunitiesc
Improving sector productivity and expanding market access is at the core of a more
robust agricultural economy. Productivity gains will depend upon a supportive policy
environment that enables rural producers to use the resources available to them more
efficiently and sustainably. Secure and equitable access to land and water resources,
rangelands, fisheries and forests is a key ingredient of this policy environment. The
development of rural financial services is equally important to allow for purchases of
inputs and equipment in order to increase the productivity of land and labour and
stimulate income-generating activities. Productivity gains will also depend upon access to
information and technology developments framed by a demand-led and multidisciplinary
approach. Market access will depend on improved physical access and reduced
transactions costs, particularly through appropriately targeted infrastructure and better
transport services. Support for producer associations will enhance capacity to engage in
market places dominated by increasingly large food processing and modern food retail
industry such as global supermarket chains.
Promoting diversified livelihoodsc
The connections between the agricultural and non-agricultural rural economies are
key drivers of diversified livelihoods. A thriving agriculture sector underpinned by
improved productivity will expand the rural economy and influence wages and food
security. Traditionally, agricultural policy has focused on increasing agricultural
production, neglecting investment in post-harvest enterprises and non-agricultural assets
for more diversified rural livelihoods while treating as socially undesirable those
household strategies involving movement out of rural areas. To reverse this trend,
governments and external partners should improve their understanding of labour markets
and migration patterns and incorporate that understanding in national policies; establish
functioning land markets, so that people are more able to move to new forms of economic
activity; promote entrepreneurship; and tailor investments in infrastructure, education
and health services to new livelihood patterns.
Reducing risk and vulnerability…
Poor households with livelihoods dependent on agricultural production face
numerous shocks and stresses, some potentially catastrophic. The level of risk facing poor
rural households has risen with increased market exposure linked to globalisation
matched by the retrenchment of the state for the direct provision of services such as those
provided through state marketing boards, subsidies and price controls. Domestic shocks,
such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic, have further weakened the position of many poor
households. Reducing levels of risk, where possible, and provision of instruments to reduce
vulnerability has to be a central element of pro-poor agriculture policy. This not only
provides social protection for poor people, but enables them to undertake new, viable but
more risky livelihoods, increase their participation in markets and generate pro-poor
economic growth.

Principles of the new agenda

2008-04-25T21:32:00.000-07:00

This report identifies four principles of engagement at the core of the new agenda. These
principles are essential in defining how the new agriculture agenda should be promoted,
and in how the investment and policy options proposed under the new agenda should be
articulated. These principles are:
● Adapt approaches to diverse contexts.
● Build institutions and empower stakeholders.
● Support pro-poor international actions.
● Foster country-led partnerships.
Adapting approaches to diverse contexts…
Current reality in rural areas is defined by a highly diverse range of stakeholders
involved in agriculture – with considerable variation in their assets and access to markets
and the way institutions promote or constrain their interests. To address the needs of the
rural poor, policy needs to be informed by the dynamics in these processes. That, in turn,
needs to be based on an understanding of the place of agriculture in the rural economy and
in people’s livelihood strategies, in the productive potential of the land and labour involved
in agricultural production and the opportunities for agricultural enterprises.
A typology of five “rural worlds” can guide policy makers in understanding the diverse
rural and agricultural systems and dynamics and respond with appropriate pro-poor
policies. These rural world categories are not mutually exclusive. The typology of rural
worlds is used throughout this report as a guide rather than a rigid framework for
differentiating rural households. By using a more differentiated analysis based on people’s
livelihoods, it makes clear that poverty is located unevenly across and within rural
populations, that policy in and for agriculture affects different groups in different ways and
that the actions of one rural group can improve or impair the livelihoods of others.
● Rural World 1 – large-scale commercial agricultural households and enterprises.
● Rural World 2 – traditional agricultural households 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.
Local contexts vary in their agro-ecological potential and in the accompanying
economic transformation – the contribution of agriculture gradually declines as the
economy diversifies. Public policy linked to agriculture should be tailored to a country’s
agro-ecological potential and the stage of transformation that it has attained. Policies need
to be flexible enough to adapt to success and allow for resources to be transferred to other
areas of the economy.
Building institutions and empowering stakeholders…
Much of the failure of agriculture to achieve its potential is institutional. Support by
the state has been unresponsive to the needs of the poor and inefficient in marketing
producers’ output, sometimes preventing the natural development of markets for
producers. Public institutions need to be strengthened in their capacity to develop an
appropriate blend of policies, regulatory frameworks and investments to re-launch the
agricultural sector. At the same time, the role of private sector institutions needs to be
strengthened to help address a range of problems including: limited access to financial
services including credit and risk management instruments, to key inputs such as seed
and fertiliser, and to output markets. These problems are often magnified for female
producers.
A strategy to strengthen institutions must also develop the skills, the capacity, and the
organisation of poor rural producers to maximise their input in the policy processes and
ensure accountability of policy makers. A major challenge, particularly in public extension
and research services, is the capacity of the institutions themselves to deliver clientfocused
services for households in Rural Worlds 2 and 3. Years of under-funding and
relative neglect have greatly weakened these institutions to deliver in the new agricultural
environment, which requires a demand-led rather than supply-led approach.
Supporting pro-poor international actions…
Three important processes can have major impacts on the successful implementation
of the new agenda for agriculture. One is the global trade negotiations to reduce
agricultural subsidies. A second is a major scaling up of aid in response to the challenge of
meeting the Millennium Development Goals. A third is the multi-donor commitment to
improve aid effectiveness, as set out by the Paris Declaration of March 2005. On agriculture
specifically, G8 heads agreed to support the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD)-inspired, comprehensive set of actions to “raise agricultural productivity,
strengthen urban-rural linkages and empower the poor”. The way these processes play out
in the short and medium terms will have an important bearing on conditions for enabling
pro-poor growth through agriculture.
Fostering country-led partnerships…
The Paris Declaration calls for an ambitious reform in the way aid is managed and
donors should be guided by these principles in helping countries unlock agriculture’s
potential contribution to pro-poor growth. National poverty reduction strategies (PRSs), the
main point of reference at the country level for operationalising the aid effectiveness
agenda, are critical for implementing the new agenda for agriculture. But agriculture and
rural development have been neglected in past PRSs, largely due to an inadequate
understanding of the agricultural and rural dimensions of poverty. A key challenge is to
redress the imbalance in the PRSs – to raise the profile of the productive sectors in general,
and of agriculture in particular. More specifically, attention must be given to effective
monitoring frameworks in supporting improved decision-making, flexible
implementation, and increased accountability. Development processes are the outcome of
power, knowledge and information relationships. It is therefore important to promote the
participation of all PRS stakeholders, including rural producers and their organisations, in
the development of policies and investments with the aim of influencing and eventually
re-orienting their implementation.

The urgency of a new agenda

2008-04-25T21:31:00.002-07:00

Attention to agriculture in terms of policy commitments and investment levels has
declined in both international donor and developing country policies and programmes,
despite the demonstrated high rates of return and the reductions in poverty that come
from such investments. Yet achieving the internationally agreed poverty reduction targets
will depend on establishing higher rates of economic growth, which equates to growth in
agricultural sector productivity for the majority of countries where these targets are
relevant. And a more robust agriculture sector will need to be framed within a new agenda
that not only matches today’s rural and global realities but engages and enables poor
households to generate sustainable livelihoods.

A more challenging context for agriculture growth

2008-04-25T21:31:00.001-07:00

Today, rural households face challenges much different than those faced by the “green
revolution” producers who achieved sustained gains in agriculture productivity only a few
decades ago. Over the past 20 years there has been a substantial decline in public sector
support for agriculture and many producers have lost access to key inputs and services.
While public sector provision of these services was not very efficient, it often provided the
sole linkages to markets for poor rural producers. Today, such links are tenuous and
complicated by much greater integration of the global economy. Smallholder producers
now compete in markets that are much more demanding in terms of quality and food
safety, and more concentrated and integrated than in the past. OECD agricultural subsidies
further distort many of these same markets.
Economic integration is accompanied by other challenges that further weaken the socioeconomic
position of the rural poor. In parts of the world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa,
rural areas are hard hit by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which is disrupting the transfer of
knowledge, destroying traditional land allocation systems, and dramatically changing the
demographic composition of many rural communities. Climate change with growing
population density is increasing pressure on an already fragile natural resource base that
is the mainstay of rural livelihoods. Conflict conditions, many of which result from, or are
provoked by poverty, are further eroding the livelihood systems and resilience of rural poor
women and men.

Agriculture’s central role in stimulating

2008-04-25T21:29:00.000-07:00

In most poor countries, agriculture is a major employer and source of national income and
export earnings. Growth in agriculture tends to be pro-poor – it harnesses poor people’s key
assets of land and labour, and creates a vibrant economy in rural areas where the majority
of poor people live. Agriculture connects economic growth and the rural poor, increasing
their productivity and incomes. The importance of agriculture for poverty reduction,
however, goes well beyond its direct impact on rural incomes. Agricultural growth,
particularly through increased agricultural sector productivity, also reduces poverty by
lowering and stabilising food prices; improving employment for poor rural people;
increasing demand for consumer goods and services, and stimulating growth in the nonfarm
economy.
A positive process of economic transformation and diversification of both livelihoods and
national economies is the key to sustained poverty reduction. But it is agricultural growth
that enables poor countries, poor regions and ultimately poor households to take the first
steps in this process.

Introduction Water Quality in the Tropical

2008-04-15T09:00:00.000-07:00

Like many other developing countries in the world, Indonesia faces enormous aquatic

environmental degradation. One of the main problems is related to the load of organic waste from coastal fish farms into coastal waters or estuaries, so there is an urgent need for recuperative actions. This environmental degradation is predicted to be apprehensively aggravated in the coming period due to the rapid increase in mariculture. In case of coastal aquaculture in Indonesia, marine fish culture with cages has been growing since 1999.

The production of aquaculture industry in Indonesian waters grew fast in the past 4 years, from 135 thousand tons in 1999 to 220 thousand tons in 2001. It contributes more than 24% of the total fish production of Indonesia’s fisheries sector (Directorate General of Fisheries Indonesia, 2002). Associated with this profitable development are risks of negative environmental impact, such as pollution, landscape modification, or biodiversity change.

Intensive fish farming generates large amounts of organic waste in the form of unconsumed feed, fecal and excretory matters that were released to the environment. The scale of environmental impact would depend not only on the intensity of fish culture operations, such as stocking density and feed input, but also on the hydrographic conditions of the culture site (Pawar et al., 2001). It has been well known that the major area of impact on the marine environment from organic wastes produced by fish farms is the sea floor directly underneath and some distance away from the cages (Yokohama, 2003).

The waste from marine fish cage operations which include uneaten food and faeces settled on the bottom may develop anoxic water and produce toxic gases (e.g. ammonia, methane and hydrogen sulfide (Wu, et al., 1995). A decrease in DO and increases in BOD, nutrients (phosphate and nitrate) have been generally found in water column around fish farm (Pawar, et al, 2001). In addition, potentially toxic decay products such as methane and hydrogen sulfide can outgas into the water from the bottom. These conditions may cause

physiological stress, disease, reduced growth, or death of cultured species.

But in Indonesia, not only the study about the environmental impact caused by the marine fish culture but also the basic knowledge of the coastal sea besides, the mangrove estuary and coral reef are lacking. The coastal waters studies on hydrography, water quality and their relations to marine culture activity are very limited in Indonesia. Moreover, generally the study on hydrology and its ecological consequences in tropical coastal waters is not as extensive as in temperate areas (Damar, 2003). Therefore this study was made for describing the basic characteristics of the tropical coastal water where the fish culture is operating

Banjarese Sawah/Surjan Farming System

2008-04-08T05:21:00.000-07:00

This farming system is the only one in the project area that does not have rubber as a source of income. Instead, padi sawah is the main source of livelihood. In the upper stratum, the income sources include paddy sales (30% of total income), own paddy consumption (17%), citrus (16%), poultry (7%) and various off-farm activities such as salaried employment, shopkeeping and trading (30%). Among moderate households, paddy sales account for only 5% of income, citrus sales account for 35%, salaries for 35% and own paddy consumption for 25%. It is primarily wealthier households who own chickens or ducks, averaging over 25 heads. Of all the farming systems, the Lowland Sawah/Surjan offers the fewest income-earning opportunities for poorer households, with 65% of their income coming from casual labour and 35% from share cropping paddy.

In this farming system, all categories of households are less well off than their counterparts in other systems. Wealthier households, for instance, who make up less than 10% of all households, earn under Rp3 million per year. Moderate households, 35% of all households, earn under Rp1 million per year and poor households (55%), earn less than Rp500,000. Nearly all of the households in this farming system, however, have received a loan.

Transitional Banjarese Farming System

2008-04-08T05:20:00.000-07:00

The livelihood strategies for Transitional Banjarese households are based on a combination of those for Banjarese households in the Uplands and the Lowlands. The major difference among the systems is the presence of PIR smallholder/nucleus estate rubber outgrower schemes in the transitional zone. Although income from this scheme accrues only to wealthier households, all households in this system have jungle rubber as their main source of livelihood.

Banjarese Farming System

2008-04-08T05:17:00.001-07:00

In the Upland Banjarese system, most farmers depend on rubber as their primary source of cash income. For poorer households, 80% of total income comes from rubber share tapping or own production. Although the upper stratum households are more diversified and earn part of their income from groundnut sales, coffee or off-farm activities, rubber still constitutes 60% of the income of moderate households and 40% of that of wealthier households. As in the Dayak system, it is the wealthier households who are the rubber traders. Nearly all households own chickens, although in small numbers due to the high incidence of disease.

Wealthier households in the Upland Banjarese system make up just 10% of the population but earn over Rp3 million per year. Moderate households, who represent around 30% of the population, earn between Rp1 million and Rp3 million per year. Poorer households, who constitute over half of all households in this farming system, earn less than Rp500,000 per year. Most poorer households are food deficit. Households in the upper stratum have access to electricity and own a television set, radio and bicycle. Over half of the households in the middle stratum received loans compared with only one third of the households in the upper and lower stratum.

Dayak Farming System

2008-04-08T05:17:00.000-07:00

The Dayak farming system is land rich but poor in cash and consumer goods. In Dayak villages, one of the main features that distinguish wealthy households from the poor is cash earnings from bananas, which account for nearly 50% of the total income earned by wealthier households. For moderate and poorer households, rubber is the main source of cash income, either through own production or share tapping, whereas the rubber income earned by wealthier households comes from rubber trading. Wealthier households also differ from the lower stratum in terms of the amount of land owned, the number and type of off-farm activities (high percentage of income from salaries, trading and rice milling), type of housing and ownership of other assets such as a motorbike. Chickens are kept in small numbers by most households except the poorest.

In terms of wealth distribution, the average upper stratum household, who represents just 6% of the population, earns over Rp5 million per year. Moderate households, who constitute less than 30% of all households, earn less than Rp1 million per year. Poorer households, who are the majority (nearly 70%), earn less than Rp500,000 per year, which puts them at the GOI poverty line

Transitional Javanese Farming System

2008-04-08T05:09:00.000-07:00

Income sources of households in the Transitional Javanese System are much more diversified than other systems. Although rubber is an important source of cash income for the moderate and lower strata, and is mainly earned through share tapping, it contributes just 20% to total income for both types of households. This is primarily due to the absence of mature rubber trees, and is likely to change once the young rubber trees recently planted come into production. Several moderate and upper stratum households have income from clone rubber nurseries. For all strata of Javanese households, cattle are an integral part of the farming system, and most also keep chickens and maybe a few ducks. Surplus production of maize and other vegetables is sold on the local market as are legumes such as soybean, groundnuts and mungbean.

The average income of the upper stratum, who constitute just 5% of all households in this system, is around Rp5 million per year. Moderate households, who represent 25%, earn around Rp1 million per year while poorer households (70% of all households) earn about Rp500,000. In terms of assets, the upper stratum have access to electricity and own a television and motorbike, while only a few households in the lower stratum would own even a radio or bicycle. Of those with loans, the majority have been from moderate and poorer households.

Rice In Indonesia

2008-03-17T20:35:00.000-07:00

On her visit to Indonesia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the growing U.S. relationship and strategic partnership with Indonesia. She cited U.S. support for Indonesia's democracy, trade, and economic development; important military-to-military ties; counterterrorism cooperation; and the desirability of increased educational and cultural programs and exchanges.

During her visit, Secretary Rice announced the U.S. is providing eight-million-five-hundred-thousand dollars to be used to produce educational television programs for Indonesian children. The funds are part of a one-hundred-fifty-seven million dollar U.S. commitment to train teachers and improve school curricula that President George W. Bush announced in 2003.

Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population but is also the home to millions of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and peoples of other faiths and a variety of ethnicities. Secretary of State Rice said Indonesia's "deserved reputation for tolerance and inclusion and for the celebration of diversity is indeed an inspiration to the entire world." Ms. Rice says the U.S. is committed to working with Indonesia to deal with such issues as avian influenza, maritime piracy, and the fight against regional terrorist groups like Abu Sayyef and Jemaah Islamiyah:

"This region knows that terrorists must be actively confronted, and the United States is helping in that fight. We are working alongside countries like Malaysia and Singapore, and to build the capacity of others, like the Philippines, who have the will to fight terrorism but need help with the means. Indonesia is bringing terrorists to justice. And these actions are empowering people across this region who possess the most enduring force of all, the force of tolerance. Muslim citizens in Southeast Asia are uniting Islamic traditions with democratic principles, and advancing the hope for peace in this region."

Ms. Rice said the U.S., Indonesia, and other nations are "fighting a very tough enemy, an enemy that has been felt. . . .in Indonesia with bombings in Bali and Jakarta":

"There is an understanding that we have a deep and abiding respect for the Indonesian people, for their various faiths, and a desire to see this great democracy prosper."

Secretary of State Rice says, "In Indonesia, the deserved reputation for tolerance and inclusion and for the celebration of diversity is indeed an inspiration to the entire world."

The preceding was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government.

Indonesia is one of the world's leading rice producers

2008-03-17T20:30:00.000-07:00

Indonesia is one of the world's leading rice producers, with paddy production in 2003 of more than 50 million tonnes and a cultivated area of more than 11.5 million ha. Since 1980, Indonesia's national rice yield has been the highest in tropical Asia. Indonesians are also big consumers of rice, averaging more than 200 kg per head each year.

Rice is grown at varying altitudes, with about 75 per cent of plantings in irrigated areas and less than 10 percent on rainfed lowlands. Most rice production takes place on the island of Java under irrigation. Lowland varieties belong mainly to the indica sub-species and about 85% of them are high-yielding. About 7,000 rice varieties or lines that are suitable for uplands, lowlands or tidal swamps have been identified and conserved. The Bulu rice type (also known as named "tropical japonica") was first identified in upland areas of Indonesia.

The area planted to rice increased by 33% between 1969 and 1990. Since then, however, the conversion of many ricelands in Java to non-agricultural uses has contributed to a fall in total output. Sustainable rice production requires the development and deployment of new rice varieties and crop management technologies and approaches. During the last decade, Indonesia has developed a highly skilled cadre of researchers - more than 500 Indonesian researchers have trained at IRRI over the past 20 years.

Perhaps the best-known Indonesian rice dish is Nasi goreng, which means simply "fried rice". It is actually a breakfast dish, often made from the boiled rice left over from the previous night's meal.

Rice

2008-03-17T20:20:00.000-07:00

Domesticated rice Poaceae ("true grass") family, Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima. These plants are native to tropical and subtropical southern Asia and southeastern Africa. Rice provides more than one fifth of the calories consumed worldwide by humans. (The term "wild rice" can refer to the wild species of Oryza, but conventionally refers to species of the related genus Zizania, both wild and domesticated.) Rice is grown as a monocarpic annual plant, although in tropical areas it can survive as a perennial and can produce a ratoon crop Rice can grow to 1–1.8 m tall, occasionally more depending on the variety and soil fertility. The grass has long, slender leaves 50–100 cm long and 2–2.5 cm broad. The small wind-pollinated flowers are produced in a branched arching to pendulous inflorescence 30–50 cm long. The seed is a grain (caryopsis) 5–12 mm long and 2–3 mm thick.

Rice is a staple for a large part of the world's human population, especially in East, South and Southeast Asia, making it the second most consumed cereal grain. Rice cultivation is well-suited to countries and regions with low labour costs and high rainfall, as it is very labour-intensive to cultivate and requires plenty of water for cultivation.

Rice can be grown practically anywhere, even on steep hillsides. Although its species are native to South Asia and certain parts of Africa, centuries of trade and exportation have made it commonplace in many cultures.

The traditional method for cultivating rice is flooding the fields with or after setting the young seedlings. This simple method requires sound planning and servicing of the water damming and channeling, but reduces the growth of lesser robust weed and pest plants and reduces vermin that has no submerged growth state. However, with rice growing and cultivation the flooding is not mandatory, whereas all other methods of irrigation require higher effort in weed and pest control during growth periods and a different approach for fertilizing the soil

FIELD Indonesia

2008-03-03T07:36:00.000-08:00

FIELD Indonesia is staffed by a team of experts who worked for 12 years with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Since 1990 this team has provided technical assistance to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs managed by the Government, NGOs, farmer associations and local communities.

The FIELD team has played a key role in the creation and application of approaches such as the Farmer Field School (FFS), Farmer-to-Farmer training, and Farmer Action Research Facilities. Approximately one million farmers graduated from FFS in Indonesia.

The current activities of FIELD include contracts with FAO, UNDP, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and the Government of Victoria, Australia. This work covers a number of areas including:

	capacity-building for rural livelihoods planning and action research;
	farmer training in the management of genetic resources and healthy vegetable production;
	advocacy activities relating to local governance and farmer's roles in the global food systems.

These contracts are being carried out in close cooperation with a number of groups, especially:

Farmer Trainers who are experienced in facilitating other farmers in a variety of activities such as FFS, participatory planning, field studies, farmer’s media development, action research, and advocacy

Field Leaders who work with the Ministry of Agriculture and have experience in providing consulting services to many international organizations (incl. CARE, DFID, DANIDA, and FAO) in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

The Indonesian IPM Farmer Association, a grass- roots organization that works in 10 provinces in Indonesia. Since 1998 this association has organized farmer-to-farmer movement, strengthen farmer-led research, and conduct advocacy on such issues as farmers rights.

Transition of Irrigation System Management in Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainability

2008-03-01T19:15:00.000-08:00

Transition of Irrigation System Management in Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainability." Presented at "Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millenium", the Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
This paper discusses transition of irrigation systems management in Indonesia in order to maintain sustainable benefits from its operation. Its specific focus is on reviewing the evolution of government policy regarding the role of the farmers in irrigation management, and the emphasis of the management activities, and strategies to help developed farmers' organisation. Lessons from past experience, opportunities, and challenges for sustainability is identified.

"The way irrigation has been and is being managed in Indonesia is very much under the influence of the perspectives developed at the international level. The perspective which sees irrigation as a purely technical process which then evolved to perspective which sees irrigation as socio-technical process has been the dominant perspective in the past. This paper argues that the socio-technical perspective is necessary but not sufficient to help developed programs and strategies which are supportive for the sustainability of irrigation. The experience in Indonesia tends to suggest that we need to move toward a perspective which sees irrigation as a business process to support irrigators in generating higher productive value from available water. The combination of the development of farmers' water-based business and the need for a reliable water supply would enhance the sustainability of irrigation.

"The transition from policy and program which developed based on technical perspective, then to socio- technical perspective, and moving toward irrigation as business process required reforms on the policy and strategies. The reforms efforts in the past were much more geared toward the farmers' side and less attention has been given to the reform of water related bureaucracies. This has resulted in ineffective implementation of irrigation policies and programs; specifically those related to the strengthening and development of farmers' organisation for water management and facilitating farmers' water-based business. The supply-driven logic of operation applied by the water related of the bureaucracies in implementing their programs not always in line with the application of participatory approach in developing farmers organisation.

"Indonesia has started to develop a new policy on irrigation management which is opening room for greater role of farmers' organisation and the development of farmers' water-based business. This paper will discuss the challenges and opportunities for the sustainability of irrigation under the new policy."

The soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, present

2008-02-28T01:21:00.000-08:00

Identification:The soybean aphid is a small aphid, pale yellow in life, with black siphunculi and pale cauda (See Pic). No other aphid living on soybeans has the same combination of size and colour. Other species of aphids on legumes that might be confused with it are Aphis gossypii (the cotton aphid) which has a shorter, dark cauda and Aphis craccivora (the cowpea aphid) which has a black patch on the back of the wingless adults.
Known Hosts:Overseas: In China and Japan, the soybean aphid alternates between Rhamnus species (Family Rhamnaceae) and certain legumes, mainly soybean and species of Glycine but also recorded from species of Pueraria and Desmodium (Blackman et al. 1997).In Australia, the aphid has so far only been found on soybeans.
Damage:A. glycines is capable of causing significant reduction in growth and seed production in soybeans. A study by Wang et al. (1996) in China found that seed yields were reduced by 27.8% and plant height decreased by 20.2 cm in infested plants as compared with the control.

The soybean aphid is a known vector of a number of plant virus diseases, including abaca mosaic, soyabean mosaic, soyabean stunt, beet mosaic, millet red leaf, mungbean mosaic, bean yellow mosaic and Indonesian soybean dwarf. A. glycines has been found to transmit peanut mottle virus in ground nuts in Indonesia.

In Australia experience with soybean aphid is very new. Known infestations in crops observed are distributed sporadically through a paddock and in quite small areas (1m²). Thus they can be difficult to detect. Plant damage is in the form of leaf distortion (where very dense aphid populations occur) and severe vigour loss - see photographs above.

Life Cycle:The life cycle is described in Japan by Takahashi et al (1993) and in China by Wang, et al. (1962). Studies undertaken in Taiwan, Korea and Japan indicate that the optimum temperatures for the aphid are 20-24°C (see Hirano, et al. 1996). Aphid densities peak in the vegetative plant stage and decline rapidly afterwards or towards the flowering stage.
Natural Enemies:Predators: Hoverfly larvae (Family Syrphidae) and ladybird larvae (Family Coccinellidae) have been shown to play a role in suppression of A. glycines populations in soybeans (Berg, et al. 1997).
Parasites: A number of parasitoids are known to be effective in helping to control numbers of the aphid. The braconid wasps Aphidius cingulatus, Ephedrus persicae and Ephedrus plagiator are effective primary parasitoids in Korea (Chang et al. 1994). Wang and Ba (1998) reviewed options for cultural and biological control of A. glycines.
Distribution:Overseas: China, Japan, far eastern Russia, Korea, Thailand, Borneo, Malaya, the Philippines, Indonesia.

In Australia, the species has been found in NSW and Queensland. In NSW this includes the North Coast, Northern Tablelands and Forbes in the Central West. In Queensland, soybean aphid has been found in most soybean areas from Bundaberg to SE Qld, including the Darling Downs.

Indonesia Agriculture

2008-02-27T07:59:00.000-08:00

About 45% of Indonesian workers are engaged in agriculture, which accounts for 17% of GDP in 2001. Some 31 million ha (76.6 million acres) are under cultivation, with 35% to 40% of the cultivated land devoted to the production of export crops. Some 60% of the country's cultivated land is in Java.

There are three main types of farming: smallholder farming (mostly rice), smallholder cash cropping, and about 1,800 large foreign-owned or privately owned estates, the latter two producing export crops.

Small-scale farming is usually carried out on modest plots—those in Java average about 0.8–1 ha (2–2.5 acres)—often without benefit of modern tools and methods, good seed, or fertilizer. Although rice, vegetables, and fruit constitute the bulk of the small farmer's crops, about 20% of output is in cash crops for export, the chief of which is rubber. Of the estategrown crops, rubber, tobacco, sugar, palm oil, hard fiber, coffee, tea, cocoa, and cinchona are the most important. Dutch, United Kingdom, United States, French, and Belgian capital financed estate agriculture in colonial times, with the Dutch share being the largest. Management of Dutch interests was taken over by the Indonesian government in December 1957; in 1964, the 104 UK-o

perated plantations were confiscated without any compensation, and Indonesian managers were appointed. The following year, the US-operated p

lantations were expropriated, and all foreign plantations were placed under the control and supervision of the Indonesian government. In

1967, some of the estates seized in 1965, including the US-leased rubber plantations, were returned, but the majority were retained by the government.

Because the population is rapidly increasing, the government seeks to achieve food self-sufficiency through expansion of arab

le acreage, improved farm techniques (especially the use of fertilizers and improved seeds), extensio

n of irrigation facilities, and expanded training for farmers. Production of rice, the staple food, has been gradually increasing, and production comes close to meeting domestic requirements. This increase has resulted less from extension of cultivated area through the government's resettlement policy than from

expanded use of irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides and cultivation of high-yielding hybrid rice, espec

ially insect-resistant hybrids. It also reflects the success of the government's "mass guidance" program, which provides technical assistance, easy credit terms, and marketing support through a system of village cooperatives. Additional support was provided by the National Logistics Board, which is responsible for price regulation and the national rice-rationing programs. Due to the rapid growth of the industrial sector, the agricultural contribution to GDP is expected to decline to 11.8% by 2003.

Rice is the primary staple crop; production in 2001 totaled 50,461,000 tons. Other staple crops in 1999 included cassava (15,422,000 tons), corn (9,139,000 tons), and sweet potato (1,928,000 tons). Vegetable production in 2000 included 1,366,410 tons of cabbages, 772,818 tons of shallots, and 454,815 tons of mustard greens. Sugar is the largest commercial crop, w

ith production reaching 26,000,000 tons in 1999. About 1,564,000 tons of rubber were produced in 1999, as compared with about 648,400 in 1964. Faced with the prospect of declining yields, the government began an extensive replanting and rehabilitation program in 1981. In 2001/02, Indonesia was the world's fourth largest producer of coffee (after Brazil, Colombia, and Viet Nam); some 369,600 tons of coffee were grown that year, as compared with 188,900 tons in 1972 and an annual average of 120,400 tons during 1960–65. Indonesia is the world's second-largest producer of palm oil (after Malaysia); 9.1 million tons were produced in 2001/02. Palm kernels (2.68 million tons in 2001/02) and copra (1.36 million tons in 2001/02) are also important export crops.

Agriculture Futures Mostly Rise

2008-02-26T23:16:00.000-08:00

A barren, treeless island in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard may prove to be the last, best hope of agriculture in warmer, more fertile parts of the world. The first batch of 100 million of the most important agricultural seeds were placed into the doomsday repository there today. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is buried deep within a frozen mountainsid e near the Norwegian town of Longyearbyen that perpetually cools it to –18 degrees Celsius (–0.4 degree Fahrenheit) with or without permafrost. Built to withstand all foreseeable disasters, including a recent earthquake that was the biggest in Norwegian history, it has room to protect at least 4.5 million samples (2.25 billion seeds) in its three man-made caverns.

"The opening of the seed vault marks a historic turning point in safeguarding the world's crop diversity," says Cary Fowler, executive director of the Rome-based Global Crop Diversity Trust, which led the project. "Crop diversity will soon prove to be our most potent and indispensable resource for addressing climate change, water and energy supply constraints, and for meeting the food needs of a growing population." Rice was the first staple to be stored in the vault—strains from 104 countries around the globe. Sealed in airtight foil packages and encased in boxes, the seeds will remain viable but dormant in the low temperature and humidity conditions.

Wheat, maize, potato, bean and even watermelon seeds will be placed in Svalbard in coming weeks. All told, 268,000 different varieties from Canada, Columbia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and Syria, among others, will be the first to enter the deep freeze.

The vault is designed to protect against global-scale disasters—human or natural—that could potentially wipe out agriculture. Similar local seed banks have allowed farmers to recover from recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as provided new varieties capable of growing in changed conditions, such as rice strains that thrive in fields that had been inundated with saltwater after the Asian tsunami in 2004.

"Gene banks are not seed museums but the repositories of vital, living resources that are used almost every day in the never-ending battle against major threats to food production," says Emile Frison, director general of Bioversity International. "We're going to need this diversity to breed new varieties that can adapt to climate change, new diseases and other rapidly emerging threats."

Such gene banks are themselves vulnerable. For example, a typhoon in 2006 wiped out the Philippines's national rice seed repository. "Unfortunately, these kinds of national gene bank horror stories are fairly common," Fowler says.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is meant to be the backup of last resort, stocked with copies of different crops from national seed storage facilities. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Germplasm System plans to send more than a million seeds to the vault, including sweet pepper, squash and tomatoes.

In the vault's cold isolation, the seeds can keep for hundreds and thousands of years—the grain sorghum alone can last for 20,000 years—effectively allowing agriculture to be restarted in the event of a global calamity, such as nuclear war or catastrophic climate change. But the vault will require some vestiges of human civilization to persist, if only to build the transportation to bring the seeds back out of their new icy home.

"The world's crop gene pool contained in seeds is essential for increasing crop productivity; mitigating climate change, pests and diseases; and ensuring a genetic resource base for the future," said Jacques Diouf, director general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, in remarks prior to the opening of the vault. "Seeds are the vehicle of life."