Intensification of agricultural production or diversification of income sources have been the two most widespread adaptations of rural people to the crisis of traditional livelihood strategies. These two responses are not mutually exclusive: contemporary rural livelihood strategies can include elements of both or shift from one to the other in different points in time. Notwithstanding it is analytically useful to contrast some of their respective attributes.
Agricultural intensification refers to the use of a greater amount of non-land resources (labor, inputs, etc.) for a given land area, so that a higher output is produced (Hussein and Nelson 1999). It generally focuses on the increased production of crops and agricultural commodities best suiting the agro-ecological conditions of the region and the farm and existing market outlets.
Intensification often consists in the replacement of traditional crops or agricultural commodities with new high yield varieties, requiring improved technology. However, sometimes intensification takes the shape of an initial diversification move: new varieties and technologies are incorporated in the traditional agricultural commodities mix on an experimental basis. If the experiment proves successful, farmers may decide to invest increasing amount of land, labor and other assets in the cultivation of the new and more remunerative variety. In both cases, agricultural intensification may lead to a decreased diversity of the farm outputs and to some form of farm long-term specialization (Pinghali and Rosegrant 1995). However, agricultural intensification is not always equal to mono-cropping. Indeed, most small-farmers in the world have incorporated intensification technology and know-how to operate (under a variety of arrangements) integrated farming systems, which continue to keep a significant degree of diversity (Dixon and others 2001).
Green Revolution success in increasing yields suggests that agricultural intensification in particular in its multi-crop integrated version might be the ideal solution to make small farmers livelihood strategy capable to cope with population growth, market economy, socio-cultural change and modernization of rural society at large. However, intensification can only work when market and societal conditions enable farmers to sell their produce at a price that compensates the increased cost of production deriving from the use of high yielding inputs. Moreover, in the long run, intensification might not always be compatible with the sustainable use of land and other national resources. Environmental degradation and loss of competitiveness resulting from the increase in capital intensive (industrial) agriculture in the world food market are indeed two important drives pushing many small farmers away from agricultural intensification.
Rural livelihoods diversification has generally occurred as a result of an increased importance of off-farm wage labor in household livelihood portfolio or through the development of new forms of on-farm/on-site production of non-conventional marketable commodities. In both cases, diversification ranges from a temporary change of household livelihood portfolio (occasional diversification) to a deliberate attempt to optimize household capacity to take advantage of ever-changing opportunities and cope with unexpected constraints (strategic diversification).
As agricultural specialization can start from an initial diversification move, also livelihoods diversification can eventually lead to some form of household specialization. For instance, in particular circumstance migratory wage labor may result so cost/effective to push the household away from conventional on-farm activities. Conversely, the identification of a particular niche commodity (e.g. mushrooms) may lead the household to invest all its labor and other assets in it, disregarding both conventional farming activities and wage labor.
However, neither of the above hypothetical examples properly illustrates diversification as a rural livelihood strategy. Rather this consists in maintaining over time a diversified portfolio of activities and in adjusting it according to contingencies in order to maximize return, spread risk, or achieve other household goals (see below). By keeping the capability to operate a heterogeneous set of activities, diversifying households are likely to enjoy higher flexibility and resilience capacity than agricultural dependent rural households. Thus it is not surprising that in the light of the reiterated environmental, economic and political shocks affecting rural areas of developing countries diversification has become during the last 30 years increasingly attractive for many rural households[2].
|
[2] Reardon and others (1998)
estimate that non-farm income sources currently account for 40-45% and 32% of
the average African and Asian rural household respectively. Escobal (2001)
suggests that the equivalent figures for rural Latin America and rural Peru are
40% and 51% respectively. |
