المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

The following contribution is a translation of the article 'Sociale protectie maakt Afrikaanse boeren niet lui, maar juist productiever' published in Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant on 25 March 2018:

No protection without production

Both in Africa and in the West, policy makers are aware that the focus in the coming years must lie on the African agricultural sector. Investment in agriculture must help millions of unemployed young people find a job, export and generate economic growth and meet the high demand for food, especially in areas hit hard by climate change. Billions are therefore being allocated to increase the productivity of African agriculture.

This is a good objective, but the preconditions for such investments are not always adequate. For the same reason that a child will not automatically improve its learning from building a school alone, the African farmer will not simply produce more. One of the important preconditions for improved productivity is having social protection: in order to be able to invest in a successful business, a farmer must not only receive the support to build this business, but also have a social safety net in hard times.

The neglected child

Unfortunately, at the moment, little attention is paid to the importance of social protection in Dutch foreign policy. It is no coincidence that this happens at a time when skepticism about our own social security system has also increased in the Netherlands. It would cause too much dependency, make people lazy and distract attention from what someone would actually help: a job.

In the African countryside, however, the opposite is true. Families receive cash transfers in many countries. These are regular payments from governments or NGOs that can take place in different forms. They can be unconditional and universal (this is what we call a 'basic income' in the Netherlands), but also targeted to certain groups (women, refugees, etc.) or under conditions that they are spent in a certain way (on health care for example). 

Contrary to what Dutch cynicism suggests, cash transfers seem to lead to more productivity among farmers. A publication by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and UNICEF in 2016 about the impact of cash transfers in 7 African countries gave many skeptics reason to optimism: instead of laziness, cash transfers ensure increased production and investments in other seeds, manure and staff on the farm. The money is not spent on the wrong things at all: instead of an increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco, cash transfers appear to lead to more registrations in schools and increased spending on clothing and shoes.

Moreover, it turned out that the work, in particular among small farmers, was on average 36 percent more productive. The fact that social protection has become a neglected child is therefore undesirable from the perspective of food security, because cash transfers can provide the much needed boost that farmers need to increase their productivity.

What we can learn from Ethiopia

One of the social protection programs that still receives Dutch support is the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia, part of the World Food Program of the United Nations and the national Food Security Program of Ethiopia. Approximately 8 million Ethiopians in vulnerable areas regularly receive money and food, during which the aid can be increased in periods of food shortages. As part of this, participants participate in agricultural, water and infrastructure projects, intended not only to provide households with the protection mentioned above, but also to give participants the opportunity to build something themselves. The supplies of food and water that are provided in times of need are built up by the participants throughout the year. This program therefore works simultaneously as a trampoline and safety net. Thanks to the trampoline, a farmer gets the opportunity to invest and increase his or her productivity, and thanks to the safety net he will receive support as soon as, for example, harvests fail thanks to El Niño in recent years.

Since the introduction of the PSNP in 2005, good results have generally been achieved. For example, in 2011 the World Bank evaluation showed that participating families have an average of 29 percent fewer food shortages and half a million people have climbed out of poverty in the long term. The combination of giving money and protection therefore appears to be effective, although the results are very different. For example, in areas with a relatively high drought and / or serious poverty, the impact of the program is smaller.

Through the INCLUDE knowledge platform, research is being conducted on how groups and areas requiring additional attention can be included in the PSNP. In general, INCLUDE also pays attention to two main questions about social protection programs in Africa: how can they be designed and implemented as effectively and affordably as possible, and how can the poorest people be best targeted?

Tailor-made policies

On this last question, the research into the PSNP offers an important, often forgotten, conclusion: that the poorest, most vulnerable people need a tailor-made program to escape poverty. Investment fund or cash transfers alone have little value for them. A disease case in the family, a lack of skills to start a productive business, or simply the fear of losing everything in a climate disaster; these are just some possible explanations why such a sum of money will not be used to invest, but only for survival.

In recent years, therefore, more and more attention has been paid to the many-sided programs that are needed to lift poor families out of poverty: the so-called 'graduation programs'. These programs integrate cash transfers, education, support to go to work and personal guidance in one package, to ensure that participants not only get out of poverty, but also do not fall back into it. In 2015, a group of leading development economists led by Abhijit Banerjee published an evaluation of programs in six countries that left no room for doubt: an integrated program requires substantial financial investments and a lot of patience, but is by far the most effective method for sustainably alleviating poverty.

Fortunately, this realization is taking place in Africa itself: in recent decades, in many African countries, with the support of international donors, social protection systems have been developed by national governments. Following success in Ethiopia, productive safety net programs have now also been introduced in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. And many countries invest in, among other things, national pension systems, maternity care coverage and also small cash transfers to households.

Usually, however, these systems still have limited resources and scope. It is therefore important to take up the gauntlet and, in addition to direct investments in agricultural projects, also ensure that social protection mechanisms are in place to achieve agricultural development. The billions spent on African agriculture in the coming years will receive the highest return as soon as they are accompanied by investments in social protection programs. At international institutions such as the World Bank, the FAO and UNICEF, this awareness has begun to subside. It is now up to the Netherlands to abandon its skepticism and follow this policy trend. No production without protection.

1. Under what conditions can agriculture succeed in lifting people out of extreme poverty? Particularly those households with limited access to productive resources.

People doing agriculture, especially in developing countries, should work hard. I see that many times agriculturists depend on government for subsidies, loans, etc. Farmer toil in the field to grow crops, but he is often offered a small price by the middle man (who is between the grower and consumer) who pockets a large junk of money doing nothing. Government should take action to minimize this anomaly so that the farmer gets a better price through co-operative government marketing stores where the farmer can deliver his goods without the middle man

2. What is the role of ensuring more sustainable natural resource management in supporting the eradication of extreme poverty?

Encouraging farmers to adopt organic farming wherein they can use natural resources like compost, green manures, biofertilizers and biocontrol agents which are cost effective and environment friendly compared to the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

3. Can those without the opportunities to pursue agricultural production and to access resources such as fish, forests and livestock find pathways out of extreme poverty through these sectors?

Those who do not have access to their own land, livestock, fishery, etc. can work for wages and earn their livelihood.

4. What set of policies are necessary to address issues connecting food security and extreme poverty eradication in rural areas?

One of the policy that can be taken by the government is mentioned in the answer to question no 1. Further free schooling can be given to the children of poor farmers, along with free mid-day meal.

5. Can you share any examples of experiences that succeeded in reducing (or eradicating) extreme poverty through an agricultural pathway?

Very few states in India have been declared as organic agriculture states wherein no chemical fertilizers and pesticides are used. Further in some places government/ NGO's provide free mid-day meal to school children in remote areas.

In the context of limited access to productive resources:

• The little agricultural inputs that can be accessed should be of good quality so that farmers can obtain higher yields from small cultivated areas
• Provision of agricultural inputs to such farmers at subsidized rates by the government can be of help
• Adequate government regulation to ensure that agricultural inputs (seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, ) are of high quality can be of help
• Need for adequate agricultural extension services through which farmers can receive different forms of support

In many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture has the potential of bringing about economic growth, overcoming poverty, and enhancing food security. This is because it employs most of the labor, produces output used as food and raw materials for industries, earns foreign exchange through exports and can generate savings which can be invested in other sectors of the economy. Of the total population of Sub-Saharan Africa, over 60% live in rural areas and more than 90% of rural people in these regions depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Improving the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of smallholder farming is therefore the main pathway out of poverty in using agriculture for development. Poverty is a key characteristic of traditional agriculture which is also the predominant form of agriculture in LDCs. The major causes of poverty include inadequate access to land and capital for the majority of the farmers and technological backwardness.

In order to defeat poverty we need to tackle the two issues above. Agriculture per se is fraught with risks and uncertainties particularly in fragile LDC economies hence the need for policy measures to reduce the risks and uncertainties.

It has been argued that despite their poverty, peasant farmers are allocatively efficient in productive resource management. An opposing view to this is that because of poverty, risk minimization takes precedence over profit maximization. Those who believe in the poor but efficient view believe that technological advance is virtually the sole means of raising output and incomes in peasant agriculture.

However opponents of this view believe that significant increase in output can be achieved through more efficient use of existing technology. The upshot is that progress can be achieved by doing both i.e. improving production incentives as well as by encouraging farmers to make better use of present production techniques.

Gross inequality in the distribution of ownership of production resources particularly land gives rise to the demand of land reforms. Land reform is a precondition for agricultural development. Important to note is that more land redistribution of ownership is necessary but not sufficient to transform agriculture. What is needed is a more comprehensive agrarian reforms that tackle issues of extension, credit and marketing services.

Case example: West Pokot County in Kenya

Pastoralists face many shocks, which increase their vulnerability to food insecurity and poverty. In West Pokot county of Kenya, such shocks include prolonged seasons of drought that leads to acute shortage of forage resulting to fluctuations in milk and meat production and ultimately loss of livestock. In recent years the county government of West Pokot together with other development partners put in place interventionist programmes aimed at building pastoralists’ livelihood resilience to climate and other related shocks. In order to understand the extent to which these efforts contribute to resilience this study was done. Primary survey data was collected through a combination of methods comprising a focus group discussion, key informant interviews and a household survey on 191 households.

Results showed that local indigenous practices in herd management and ethno-veterinary practice as well as external interventions programmes such as enclosing land, bee keeping, stocking improved breeds and institutional support in form of credit and extension services had a positive and significant effect on building household resilience to shocks. These results suggest the need to incorporate the indigenous practices in the external interventions together with more institutional support to help pastoralists overcome shocks.

The bane of extreme poverty is extreme malnutrition and consequently reduced productivity and earning capacity. Hence, efforts to increase food and nutrition security at individual, household and village ( local) level by leveraging agriculture to nutrition will also impact productivity and poverty.

To stimulate the debate, we would be grateful if you could share your experience and views on the questions below:

1. Under what conditions can agriculture succeed in lifting people out of extreme poverty? Particularly those households with limited access to productive resources.

Agriculture is one of the most dangerous professions. The farmer is damned if he produces less and damned if he produces more resulting in glut and price crash.  More emphasis on research on making farming resource- efficient and strong technological support  to the famers in terms of planning cropping pattern, use of resources, and technological intervention etc along with behavioural change communication are needed to maximise output input ratio. The difference in productivity of China Vs India is a case in point.

Promotion of alternative livestock and forest-based activities, besides artisanal and other skills among those with limited access to productive resource is very necessary..

1. What is the role of ensuring more sustainable natural resource management in supporting the eradication of extreme poverty?

Efficient natural resource management is extremely important to ensure cost-effective production. This involves innovative research and technology transfer

1. Can those without the opportunities to pursue agricultural production and to access resources such as fish, forests and livestock find pathways out of extreme poverty through these sectors?

Development of non-farm skills like, handicraft and artisanal skills can be very helpful in employment generation. There is considerable demand but paucity of skilled artisans in rural as well as urban areas.

1. What set of policies are necessary to address issues connecting food security and extreme poverty eradication in rural areas?

• With almost 50% of the population dependent on agriculture for livelihood, its importance should be recognised while making budgetary allocations
• Importance of agriculture for food and nutrition security besides income and export should be realised. Agriculture should be nutritionally sensitive  besides being environmentally sustainable. This needs change of mindset and research orientation, and technology transfer.
• While free water and power result in wastage some support in terms of crop insurance is needed as safety net. Some subsidy in terms of fertilisers and pesticides, drip irrigation etc may be needed with proper guidance about their use and administrative efficiency.
• There should be a mechanism for continuing education of extension workers to update their knowledge and skills. This will facilitate more effective technology transfer through extension workers who interact with the farmers
• Governments should not be misled by misguided opposition to technologies like GM crops. Health and environmental safety can be ensured through appropriate legislation. At least field trials should be allowed.
• Agriculture cannot be profitable if there is 30-40% wastage of farm produce in India. Proper storage, cold chain and food processing should receive high priority. Food processing can also generate employment.
• To make agriculture more scientific, youth should be trained through setting up of Agriculture training institutes.

1. Can you share any examples of experiences that succeeded in reducing (or eradicating) extreme poverty through an agricultural pathway?

For the past several years we have been working towards leveraging agriculture for nutrition security, while being mindful of better environment.  We (The Dangoria Charitable Trust, Hyderabad, India)  are  promoting crop diversification from water guzzling crops like paddy and sugar cane to cultivation of  micronutrient-rich, vegetables and fruits,  millets and legumes in villages of the Medak district of the state of Telangana in India . This approach would improve dietary access to micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) which are deficient in Indian diets (hidden hunger), besides saving water. While we do not go totally organic, we are introducing green methods of farming like vermicomposting, botanical pesticides and methods of water conservation. We have also introduced backyard poultry with high egg –yielding birds. 

Household diet surveys show that while homestead (near the home or in the farm) gardening increases the frequency and per capita quantity of consumption of green leafy vegetables; despite nutrition education, 25-50% of other vegetables are sold. Home-grown vegetables have replaced what was purchased from the market. As we have said in one of our publications “Economic compulsion outweighs nutritional wisdom”. However, homestead gardening does protect against reduction in vegetables consumption due to high market price. Back-yard poultry with high egg yielding breeds significantly increases household egg consumption. Esp since only few birds are given. Families buy 3 birds and one male or female bird is given free as incentive.

Combination of  strategies to reduce the input cost with greater productivity of agriculture,  and alternative livelihood opportunities through skill development are very  important. 

1. Under what conditions can agriculture succeed in lifting people out of extreme poverty? Particularly those households with limited access to productive resources.

Agriculture in rural Africa bears striking similitude to the feudal system, where those with access to productive resources (land particularly) hire the services of those without access.

In some measure therefore, whatever is done to support those with access to productive resources will inevitably impact their workers who have no access to productive resources. However, since such laborers are in the minority and most of them nomadic, they usually get peanuts for their labors. Having a Union to demand for fairer wages could help them break free from the extreme poverty. 

Also, if smallholder farmers get better prices for their products, it will impact the bottomline. So smallholder farmer cooperatives are suggested to press for fairer market prices and to check the activities of middlemen who might engage in sharp practices to shortchange smallholders.

Moreover, given the success of CCT in the Americas, agricultural conditions in addition to the three basic Human Development Indicators may be attached to Cash Transfers in Africa. However, since the basic input for agriculture is land (which is capital intensive), the governments of African nations have to be involved and land could be "given' to the extreme poor under what we may yet call Conditional Land Transfer (CLT).

Painfully, one of the greatest challenges to CCT or CLT in these parts is data. Therefore, my team and I are lobbying the government of our state towards the creation of a Statistics Bureau.

Finally, urban poverty has soared in my country over the last three years and shortly, we'll be proposing Conditional Property/Land Transfer to the government - a project in agriculture, located in the urban fringes, targeting the urban poor.

Thanks FAO, for all you do!

Poor rural households have limited access to productive resources and are most times economically disenfranchised. These groups need more robust interventions to allow for a sustainable living. Agriculture and agricultural interventions will only succeed in a safe, secure, and conflict free environment. Climate change induced herder migration resulting in conflict as is the case in Nigeria and other parts of the world will deprive households access to land and other natural resources thereby sustaining the spate of extreme poverty in the areas so affected. 

Therefore as stated earlier, broader food security policies and interventions are required at all levels of government, to capture the effects of climate change, including it's potential negative fallouts like induced migration and conflict. This is essential in achieving food security and reducing extreme poverty especially in rural areas. 

Eradicating extreme poverty. What is the role of agriculture?

The question that precedes the question in the headline of this topic is: ‘what is the relation with agriculture?’ And that relation is as close as can be. Because extreme poverty goes together with hunger. With a shortage of food and a shortage of means to buy food. And all food comes from agriculture.

Sounds very simple, but what is very important to realize is that about 80 percent of the world’s hungry people depend on some sort of farming.

You ask: What is the role of agriculture? The answer seems simple: improve agriculture on the place where the hungry people are. That must be possible because the vast majority of the hungry people are farmers!

So let’s go to your questions:

1. Under what conditions can agriculture succeed in lifting people out of extreme poverty?

As I said: 80 percent live in the countryside. If they don’t have access, the land is not far away. Providing them access to a small piece of land should not be a big problem. What those people need is empowerment, so they can stand up for themselves. And information about good agricultural practices. They need independent information about modern farming technologies, but also about the benefits of traditional crops and systems.

2. What is the role of ensuring more sustainable natural resource management in supporting the eradication of extreme poverty?

Agriculture and environment are directly related to each other. Agriculture directly influences climate and environment, as the climate influences farming. Sustainable agriculture is very important, not only for the benefit of the environment and the climate but also on a socio-economic level.

A modern highly efficient agricultural system seems very attractive because of the huge increase in production that can be obtained in a short amount of time. This system, however, needs a lot of inputs like fertilizers and chemicals for crop production. This inflicts with the environment which brings additional costs in the long term that are not calculated in the revenues.

On the other hand, those inputs cost a lot of money. Subsistence farmers, especially those who are already poor, do not have the means for those inputs. Loans are a short-term solution, which, however, brings them in a dependent situation. Farming becomes a business full of economic risks, which also can be bought off with insurances, which make the business even more costly and risky.

The best way of improving farming is taking the farmer serious and provide him with specific advice and information about increasing yields in the most appropriate way.

3. Can those without the opportunities to pursue agricultural production and to access resources such as fish, forests and livestock find pathways out of extreme poverty through these sectors?

The poor without any possibility to be engaged in farming might find employment in related branches, like processing food, packaging, mechanical maintenance etcetera. When the economy in rural area’s increase, everyone will benefit. Even businesses that are not directly related to agriculture, like supermarkets, hairdressers or administration offices.

4. What set of policies are necessary to address issues connecting food security and extreme poverty eradication in rural areas?

Empowerment of smallholder family farmers through providing them access to independent information. Those farmers often are not educated, which doesn’t mean they can’t be wise. They know exactly what is important for them and what can be changed to improve their specific situation. Listen to them. Provide them with knowledge they can use.

5. Can you share any examples of experiences that succeeded in reducing (or eradicating) extreme poverty through an agricultural pathway?

Many. I met many smallholder farmers in rural area’s and many demonstration farms who provide services for farmers that take them out of poverty.

Please read my essay smarterfarmers.org. With the empowerment of smallholder family farmers through providing them access to independent information we can end hunger, reach all 17 Sustainable Development Goals and Africa can become the world’s breadbasket.

It’s not difficult. It just needs a lot of courage. Courage mainly from governments and governmental institutions to take the right decisions. And to not be afraid of providing the poor with knowledge and influence that empowers them.

In developing countries the poor farmers do Agriculture. To eradicate extreme poverty we need to promote agricultural value chain from production to marketing.

In countries like Bangladesh the larger share of agricultural production goes to middleman. Smallholder farmers need to better engage with agricultural value chains for improving their living standards. The farmers of Bangladesh are frequently affected by various climate shocks, which also affect their livelihoods. This is one of the major reason for increasing rural to urban migration. The research centers focuses their research area to create various stress-tolerant rice varieties that can withstand on climate change. But still the adoption as well as diffusion rate is very low compared to varity release. So, only development of varieties is not enough, attention also need to increase the adoption rate among the farmers to reduce poverty.

Another main issue, young generation don’t want to be involved in this sector for their livelihood. Engaging them in agriculture or agribusiness activity will be a good initiative for economic growth and to reduce poverty.

The organic linkages between hunger and poverty are well established, the link can further be extended to limited access to physical resources, particularly good cropping land and irrigation water. We at VAAGDHARA also used to consider this as quite applicable reasons behind higher degree of malnutrition among small and marginal farmers in indigenous tribal community in Banswara district of Rajasthan, India. It was participation in LANSA supported action research program which helped us to extend our notion that it is also a play of lack of knowledge, efficient utilization of resources as per their capacity, and also following the practice of "nutrient flow in a cyclic manner.

This research program helped us to work with 600 indigenous small and marginal farmer families (30 groups of 20 families each) and move them above in reducing hunger (both in terms of quantity and quality). In this program we utilised approach of "Participatory learning and Action" to facilitate thinking process of participating groups and families. The process only helped to change mind set of these small and marginal farmers from the dilemma of farming for market or farming for family and to be specific farming for nutrition. The yearlong process of PLA focusing on nutrition sensitive farming system worked on the aspects of

• Resource assessment and planning according to existing capacity of resources (land type, soil type, moisture availability etc.)
• Improved "food diversity" from cultivated only to collected, cultivated and processed
• Efficient utilisation of family resources, where importance was also given to so called wastelands as forest food patches.

Our experience in this learning events is that Nutrition Sensitive Farming System approach can help reducing hunger, even hidden hunger (low nutrient intake) to great extent and slowly-slowly help them move out of clutch of "nutrient poverty" may not be "currency poverty". It will demand for changing attitude that best nutrition come from purchased food only, that too with higher cost food items. This is behaviour change process also thus group approach yields better as it gives space for reflection to participating families as well as facilitators.

VAAGDHARA