Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:27:24.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTENSIFICATION BENEFIT INDEX: HOW MUCH CAN RURAL HOUSEHOLDS BENEFIT FROM AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2018

D. HARRIS
D. HARRIS*
Affiliation:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), United Nations Avenue, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture is the predominant objective for agricultural research and extension worldwide. Researchers and policymakers consider SI to be essential to avoid global hunger, improve human nutrition and reduce rural poverty while avoiding all manner of environmental disasters. To achieve these global public goods requires a large number of rural households – ‘small farmers’ – in less developed countries to improve their agriculture. Household size and farm size from 11,789 households in 15 countries from sub-Saharan Africa were used to calculate an intensification benefit index (IBI) that reflects how much a household will benefit if intensification occurs. IBI is defined as the increase in personal daily income (cents/person/day) as returns to land (dollars/hectare/year) increase. Actual net farm income from 160 rural households in each of three countries was compared with their IBI values to explore the gap between potential intensification and current smallholder farm performance. Fifty percent of all households had IBI values less than 0.075 cents/dollar, 70% less than 0.125 cents/dollar and 90% less than 0.225 cents/dollar. Returns of $1000/ha/year would result in fewer than 15% of households crossing a $2/person/day poverty line; $2500/ha/year would be required to lift 50% of the sample above the line; and even with $4000/ha/year, more than 30% of households would remain below the line. Since mean net returns from three sub-sampled sites were only $78, $83 and $424/ha/year the gap between potential- and actual performance is large but, theoretically, amenable to closure through adoption of improved technologies. However, surveys have shown that the available technologies would struggle to bridge the gap completely for rural households with small farms. For many small farms, the gains from adopting improved technologies are unlikely by themselves to lift them out of poverty and so might not be as attractive as scientists would wish.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Special Issue 2: Themed Issue: Contested Agronomy , April 2019 , pp. 273 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

AGRA (2017). Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. http://www.agra.org/.Google Scholar
Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S. and Cattaneo, A. (2013). Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. ESA Working Paper no. 13-01, April 2013. Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1–40.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. B., Reardon, T. and Webb, P. (2001). Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26:315–331.Google Scholar
Carletto, C., Savastano, S. and Zezza, A. (2013). Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size-productivity relationship. Journal of Development Economics 103:254–261.Google Scholar
Chirwa, E. W. (2005). Adoption of fertilizer and hybrid seeds by smallholder maize farmers in southern Malawi. Development Southern Africa 22 (1):1–12.Google Scholar
DFID (November 2015). DFID's Conceptual Framework on Agriculture. UK: Department for International Development, 36 p. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfids-conceptual-framework-on-agriculture.Google Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R. E. and Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries – A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33:255–298.Google Scholar
Foster, A. D. and Rosenzweig, M. R. (2010). Microeconomics of technology adoption. Annual Review of Economics 2:395–424.Google Scholar
Frelat, R., Lopez-Ridaura, S., Giller, K. E., Herrero, M., Douxchamp, S., Djurfeldte, A. A., Erenstein, O., Henderson, B., Kassie, M., Paulf, B. K., Rigolot, C., Ritzema, R. S., Rodriguez, D., van Asten, P. J. A. and van Wijk, M. T. (2016). Drivers of household food availability in sub-Saharan Africa based on big data from small farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (2):458–463, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1518384112.Google Scholar
Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., Herrero, M., Hoffmann, I., Smith, P., Thornton, P. K., Toulmin, C., Vermeulen, S. J. and Godfray, H. C. J. (2013). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 341:33–34.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E, Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114:23–34.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E. (2001). Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems, 423. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Hammond, J., van Wijk, M. T., Smajgl, A., Ward, J., Pagella, T., Xu, J., Su, Y., Yi, Z. and Harrison, R. D. (2017). Farm types and farmer motivations to adapt: Implications for design of sustainable agricultural interventions in the rubber plantations of South West China. Agricultural Systems 154:1–12.Google Scholar
Harris, D. and Orr, A. (2014). Is rainfed agriculture really a pathway from poverty? Agricultural Systems 123:84–96.Google Scholar
HLPE (2013). Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, 111.Google Scholar
Homann-Kee Tui, S., Bandason, E., Maute, F., Nkomboni, D., Mpofu, N., Tanganyika, J., van Rooyen, A., Gondwe, T., Dias, P., Ncube, S., Moyo, S., Hendricks, S. and Nisrane, F. (2013). Optimizing Livelihood and Environmental Benefits from Crop Residues in Smallholder Crop-Livestock Systems in Southern Africa, Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series, 11. Patancheru: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Homann-Kee Tui, S., Valbuena, D., Masikati, P., Descheemaeker, K., Nyamangara, J., Claessens, L., Erenstein, O., van Rooyen, A. and Nkomboni, D. (2015). Economic trade-offs of biomass use in crop-livestock systems: Exploring more sustainable options in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems 134:48–60.Google Scholar
Jat, R., Sahrawat, K. and Kassam, A. (2013). Conservation Agriculture: Global Prospects and Challenges, 424. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-1-4299-6935-2.Google Scholar
Lee, D. R. (2005). Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87:1325–1334.Google Scholar
Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. and Raney, T. (2016). The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Development 87:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041.Google Scholar
Lugando, S., Dulla, H., Ngotio, D. and Mkomwa, S. (2012). The extent of adoption of conservation agriculture with trees by smallholder farmers in Tanzania. World Agroforestry Centre Working Paper, Nairobi, 40.Google Scholar
Masters, W. A., Djurfeldt, A. A., De Haan, C., Hazell, P., Jayne, T., Jirström, M. and Reardon, T. (2013). Urbanization and farm size in Asia and Africa: Implications for food security and agricultural research. Global Food Security 2 (3):156–165.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. (2009). Agricultural Technologies for Developing Countries. Brussels: European Parliament. http://www.itas.kit.edu/pub/v/2009/meye09b.pdf.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J., Gilbert, E. and Blackie, M. (2004). Income diversity, technology choice and agricultural research policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development Policy Review 22:131–146.Google Scholar
Tittonell, P., Muriuki, A., Shepherd, K. D., Mugendi, D., Kaizzi, K. C., Okeyo, J., Verchot, L., Coe, R. and Vanlauwe, B. (2010). The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa–A typology of smallholder farms. Agricultural Systems 103:83–97.Google Scholar
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, 25 September 2015. New York. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.Google Scholar
USAID (2016). Africa research in sustainable intensification for the next generation (Africa RISING). http://africa-rising.net/.Google Scholar
USDA (2009). Economic research service. United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm.Google Scholar
World Bank (2015a). http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/international-poverty-line-has-just-been-raised-190-day-global-poverty-basically-unchanged-how-even.Google Scholar
World Bank (2015b). World development report 2015: Mind, society, and behavior. http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2015.Google Scholar