Growth and Poverty Mailing List Archive

["Poulton, Colin D" <<address removed>>]

A quick contribution in response to Andy Bullock's highlighting of the 
importance of self-provisioning of food and his helpful distinguishing of the 
different relationship between agriculture and food in different contexts. Two 
thoughts:
 
Firstly, I would agree that the contribution of agriculture to achieving the 
MDGs should not be conceived of solely in terms of growth potential and, 
therefore, that public support to agriculture (DFID) should not always be 
couched in such terms - even though there are powerful arguments justifying 
support to agriculture as the most promising driver of poverty reduction in 
many areas! In areas of low agro-ecological potential (I am drawing mainly on 
African experience here, but the argument may well be more widely applicable), 
I find it hard to see agriculture acting as a powerful growth driver. However, 
whilst such areas often support significant and growing populations, with 
limited production of any tradable products to drive consumption multipliers, 
non-farm opportunities (other than migration) may also be limited. As 
populations expand, intensification of smallholder agricultural production may 
be needed simply to prevent degradation of the natural resource base from 
(further) undermining basic food security. The costs and benefits of public 
support to agriculture in these situations may have to be compared against the 
costs of providing long-term welfare support to such populations if 
self-provisioning of food goes into a vicious downward spiral as a result of 
resource degradation.
 
Secondly, I am involved in a DFID NRSP-funded action research project in 
highland areas of western Kenya close to Kisumu. Based on agro-climatic 
conditions, these should be food surplus areas, as they have a bimodal rainfall 
pattern, with rain in the main season (March â July) being particularly 
reliable. However, in practice, they are heavily dependent on food imports, 
whilst national poverty surveys consistently show them to be amongst the 
poorest in the country. Population densities are high and, therefore, land 
holdings are small (ranging between 0.5 and 2.0 ha per household). As a result 
of continuous maize cropping with very little investment in soil fertility 
replenishment, the soil has become severely depleted. Many poor households in 
these districts are now caught in a âlow level equilibrium trapâ, whereby 
their first agricultural priority is to provide themselves with maize for home 
consumption, yet yields are low and returns are insufficient to support 
investment in either organic soil fertility enhancement technologies or 
inorganic fertilisers. Thus, despite the fact that the average household puts 
the majority of its land under maize during both cropping seasons, it is still 
unable to feed itself for several months of the year. In addition to the 
problem of low soil fertility, continuous cropping of maize has also led to an 
endemic infestation of the striga weed throughout these districts, further 
depressing maize yields.
 
To invest in soils, most households (unless they have a reliable source of 
non-farm income) need to diversify into higher value crops than maize. However, 
the combination of small land holdings and existing maize deficits mean that 
they will only plant other crops if they can simultaneously raise their maize 
yields. Achieving this requires that a number of conditions must be in place. 
Firstly, households must be linked to markets, so that they can identify higher 
value cropping opportunities and be able to market their crops once they have 
grown them. In the western highlands, most producers are only familiar with 
local markets (where opportunities are limited) and they can initially only 
offer small quantities of produce, which reduces their attractiveness to 
potential buyers. Secondly, they need technical knowledge, on best cultural 
practices for the new crops and, critically, on how to manage their natural 
resource base, so as to increase their yields both of maize and of the new 
crops. Thirdly, they need to be able to access good quality seeds of crop 
varieties that are both suited to their local production conditions and are 
demanded in the market-place. Finally, many will also need access to credit, so 
as to be able to acquire inputs for more intensive maize production. This 
credit can then be repaid out of the sale of the additional crops later in the 
year. Critically, all these conditions need to be in place within their local 
area before poor households can hope to shift from a maize-only production 
system to one that delivers enhanced food and cash, whilst simultaneously 
enhancing the soil fertility on which future production depends.  
 
In this example, increased agricultural production for food self-provisioning, 
for rural income generation and growth, and for environmental investment go 
hand in hand.
 
Colin Poulton