Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The State of
Food and Agriculture
The State of
Food and Agriculture
Innovation in family farming
FAO, 2014
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information
product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and
printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial
products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source
and copyright holder is given and that FAOs endorsement of users views, products or
services is not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial
use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to
copyright@fao.org.
Contents
Foreword vi
Acknowledgements viii
Abbreviations and acronyms ix
Executive summary x
Statistical annex 95
References 127
Special chapters of The State of Food and Agriculture 138
TABLES
BOXES
FIGURES
Foreword
Every era has its challenges. And each and Agriculture 2014: Innovation in
challenge demands specific responses. family farming (SOFA 2014) offers a
In the 1960s, famine threatened South groundbreaking study of family farming.
Asia. The Green Revolution was the right The report contains the first comprehensive
answer to the looming food crisis that the estimate of the number of family farms
world faced half a century ago. in the world at least 500million. This
Fortunately, today we are not facing the means that families run about nine out of
prospect of large-scale famine but we are ten farms. Additional analysis shows that
at a crossroads. family farms occupy a large share of the
About 842 million people remain worlds agricultural land and produce about
chronically hungry because they cannot 80percent of the worlds food.
afford to eat adequately, despite the fact However, while family farmers are key
that the world is no longer short of food. to food security worldwide, they have also
In a disconcerting paradox, more than been considered by many as an obstacle to
70percent of the worlds food-insecure development and have been deprived of
people live in rural areas in developing government support. That is the mindset we
countries. Many of them are low-paid farm need to change. Family farmers are not part
labourers or subsistence producers who may of the problem: on the contrary, they are
have difficulty in meeting their families food vital to the solution of the hunger problem.
needs. But there is a limit to what family farmers
As we look towards 2050, we have the can achieve on their own, and the role of the
additional challenge of feeding a population public sector is to put in place the policies
that is eating more and sometimes better and create the enabling environment that
and healthier diets and that is expected will enable them to flourish. This must be
to surpass the 9 billion mark. At the same a government-led effort, but is one that
time, farmers, and humanity as a whole, are calls for the participation of others as
already facing the new challenges posed by well: international organizations, regional
climate change. The widespread degradation agencies, civil society organizations, the
of land and water resources, along with private sector and research institutions.
other negative environmental impacts, is The sheer diversity of family farms and
showing us the limits of highly intensive the complexity of their livelihoods mean
farming systems. that one-size-fits-all recommendations are
Hence, the quest is now to find farming not appropriate. In supporting family farms,
systems that are truly sustainable and each country and each region needs to find
inclusive and that support increased access the solutions that best respond to family
for the poor so that we can meet the worlds farmers specific needs and the local context
future food needs. Nothing comes closer to and that build on family farmers inherent
the sustainable food production paradigm capacities and strengths.
than family farming. However, what family farmers need is
It is therefore fitting that the United Nations broadly similar throughout the world:
has declared 2014 the International Year of improved access to technologies that bolster
Family Farming. This provides an occasion to sustainable increases in productivity without
highlight the role that family farmers a sector unduly raising risks; inputs that respond
that includes small and medium-scale farmers, to their particular needs and respect their
indigenous peoples, traditional communities, cultures and traditions; special attention to
fishers, pastoralists, forest dwellers, food women and young farmers; strengthened
gatherers and many others play in food producers organizations and cooperatives;
security and sustainable development. improved access to land and water, credit
To celebrate the International Year and markets; improved participation in value
of Family Farming, The State of Food chains, including an assurance of fair prices;
vii
Acknowledgements
The State of Food and Agriculture 2014 was The report benefited from external
prepared by members of FAOs Agricultural reviews and advice from many international
Development Economics Division (ESA) and experts: Nienke Beintema, Jos Falck-Zepeda
the Research and Extension Unit (DDNR) under and Keith Wiebe, International Food Policy
the overall leadership of Kostas Stamoulis, Research Institute (IFPRI); Mark Holderness
Director of ESA, Andrea Sonnino, Chief of and Thomas Price (GFAR) Kristin Davis,
DDNR and Terri Raney, Senior Economist and Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services
Chief Editor (ESA). Additional guidance was (GFRAS); Helen Hambly Odame, University
provided by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Assistant of Guelph; Laurens Klerkx; University
Director-General of the Economic and Social of Wageningen; Donald Larson, World
Development Department. Bank; Moses Makooma Tenywa, Makerere
The research and writing team was led University; Gigi Manicad, Oxfam Novib;
by Jakob Skoet (ESA) and David Kahan Hannington Odame, Centre for African
(DDNR) and included: Brian Carisma, Sarah Bio-Entrepreneurship (CABE); Bernard
Lowder, Sara McPhee Knowles and Terri Triomphe, Agricultural Research Centre
Raney (ESA); John Ruane and Julien de for Development (CIRAD); and Xiangping
Meyer (DDNR). Several other FAO colleagues Jia, Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy,
provided inputs to the report: Aslihan Arslan, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Solomon Asfaw, Panagiotis Karfakis, Leslie Initial guidance and inputs for the
Lipper, Giulia Ponzini, George Rapsomanikis study from participants of the FAO Expert
and Saumya Singh (ESA); Magdalena Blum, Consultation on agricultural innovation
Delgermaa Chuluunbaatar, Steven LeGrand, systems and family farming (March 2012)
Karin Nichterlein, Ana Pizarro and Laura Vian are gratefully acknowledged, as well from
(DDNR); May Hani, Social Protection Division; participants of the subsequent e-mail
Adriana Neciu and Jairo Castano, Statistics conference on the same theme (JuneJuly
Division; Manuela Allara and Benjamin 2012), which was managed by John Ruane
Graeub, Plant Production and Protection (DDNR).
Division; Nora Ourabah Haddad and Denis Mariana Wongtschowski, Royal
Herbel, Office for Partnerships, Advocacy and Tropical Institute of the Netherlands
Capacity Development; John Preissing, FAO (KIT) facilitated the technical review
Peru; and Stephen Rudgard, FAOLaos. workshop, which discussed and reviewed
Many other FAO colleagues from various the first comprehensive draft of the report.
technical divisions and regional offices MichelleKendrick, Economic and Social
provided expert reviews and advice on Development Department, was responsible
multiple drafts of the report, and their for publishing and project management.
contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Paola Landolfi assisted the production cycle.
External background papers and inputs were Paola Di Santo, Liliana Maldonado and Cecilia
prepared by: Ian Christoplos, Glemminge Agyeman-Anane provided administrative
Development Research; Keith Fuglie, support and Marco Mariani arranged for
Economic Research Service, US Department IT support throughout the process. Editing
of Agriculture; Silvia L. Saravia Matus, was carried out by Jane Shaw. Translation
independent consultant; Philip G. Pardey, and printing services were delivered
University of Minnesota; and Helena by the FAOMeeting Programming and
Posthumus, Royal Tropical Institute of the Documentation Service. Graphic design and
Netherlands (KIT). layout services were supplied by Flora Dicarlo.
ix
Executive summary
agriculture in the world. Estimates suggest or medium-sized family farms in the low-
that they occupy around 7080percent of and middle-income countries could make a
farm land and produce more than 80percent greater contribution to global food security
of the worlds food in value terms. and rural poverty alleviation, depending
The vast majority of the worlds farms on their productive potential, access to
are small or very small, and in many lower- markets and capacity to innovate. Through
income countries farm sizes are becoming a supportive agricultural innovation system
even smaller. Worldwide, farms of less than these farms could help transform world
1hectare account for 72percent of all farms agriculture.
but control only 8percent of all agricultural
land. Slightly larger farms between 1 and
2hectares account for 12percent of all Family farms, food security and
farms and control 4percent of the land, poverty
while farms in the range of 2 to 5hectares
account for 10percent of all farms and In most countries, small and medium-sized
control 7percent of the land. In contrast, farms tend to have higher agricultural crop
only 1percent of all farms in the world yields per hectare than larger farms because
are larger than 50hectares, but these few they manage resources and use labour more
farms control 65percent of the worlds intensively. This means that the share of
agricultural land. Many of these large, and small and medium-sized farms in national
sometimes very large, farms are family- food production is likely to be even larger
owned and operated. than the share of land they manage.
The highly skewed pattern of farm A large proportion of family farmers
sizes at the global level largely reflects with small landholdings also depend on
the dominance of very large farms in other natural resources, especially forests,
high-income and upper-middle-income pastureland and fisheries. The intensive
countries and in countries where extensive resource use on these farms may threaten
livestock grazing is a dominant part of the sustainability of production. These small
agricultural system. Land is somewhat more and medium-sized farms are central to
evenly distributed in the low- and lower- global natural resource management and
middle-income countries, where more than environmental sustainability as well as to
95 percent of all farms are smaller than 5 food security.
hectares. These farms occupy almost three- While smaller farms tend to achieve
quarters of all farm land in the low-income higher yields per hectare than larger farms,
countries and almost two-thirds in the they produce less per worker. Labour
lower-middle-income group. In contrast, productivity or output per worker is also
farms larger than 50 hectares control only 2 much lower in low-income countries than
percent and 11 percent, respectively, of the in high-income countries. Increased labour
land in these income groups. productivity is a precondition for sustained
Exactly what can be considered a small income growth, so enabling farming families
farm below 0.5or 1hectare, or some in low- and middle-income countries to raise
other size will depend on agro-ecological their labour productivity is essential if we
and socio-economic conditions, and their are to boost farm incomes and make inroads
economic viability will depend on market into reducing rural poverty.
opportunities and policy choices. Below Although smaller farms tend to have
a certain level, a farm may be too small higher yields than larger farms within the
to constitute the main means of support same country, cross-country comparisons
for a family. In this case, agriculture may show that yields per hectare are much lower
make an important contribution to a in poorer countries, where smaller farms
familys livelihood and food security, but are more prevalent, than in richer countries.
other sources of income through off-farm This seeming paradox simply reflects the fact
employment, transfers or remittances that yields in low-income countries are far
are necessary to ensure the family lives a lower, on average, than in richer countries
decent life. On the other hand, many small and far lower than they could be if existing
xii
barriers. The effective functioning of local want to devote resources to more basic
institutions and their coordination with research. The establishment of international
the public and private sectors and with partnerships and a careful division of
farmers themselves, both men and women, labour between international research with
can determine whether or not small family broader applications and national research
farms can introduce innovative, sustainable geared to domestic needs is a priority. There
improvements suited to their needs and is also scope for SouthSouth cooperation
local conditions. between large countries with major public
research programmes and countries with
less national research capacity facing similar
Agricultural research and agro-ecological conditions.
development focusing on family Research that meets the needs of family
farms farms in their specific agro-ecological and
social conditions is essential. Combining
Investing in agricultural research and farmer-led innovation and traditional
development (R&D) is important for knowledge with formal research can
boosting agricultural productivity, preserving contribute to sustainable productivity.
the environment and eradicating poverty Involving family farmers in defining
and hunger. A large body of evidence research agendas and engaging them in
confirms that there are high returns to participatory research efforts can improve
public investments in agricultural R&D. In the relevance of research for them. This
many countries such investment is currently may include working closely with producers
insufficient. Private-sector research is organizations and creating incentives for
increasingly important, especially in high- researchers and research organizations
income countries, but it cannot replace to interact with family farms and their
public research. Much agricultural research different members, including women and
can be considered a public good, where the youth, and to undertake research tailored to
benefits of the knowledge generated cannot their specific circumstances and needs.
be appropriated by a private company and
is therefore unlikely to attract the private
sector. Returns to agricultural R&D often Promoting inclusive rural advisory
take a long time to materialize and, in services
addition, research is cumulative, with results
building up over time. In this context, a While investments in agricultural R&D are
continuous long-term public commitment needed in order to expand the potential
to agricultural research is fundamental. for sustainable production, sharing
Innovative forms of more short-term knowledge about technologies and
financing can help, but stable institutional innovative practices among family farmers
funding is needed to maintain a core long- is perhaps even more important for closing
term research capacity. existing gaps in agricultural productivity
All countries need a certain level of and sustainability between developing and
domestic research capacity because developed countries. Agricultural extension
technologies and practices can rarely be and advisory services are critical for this
imported without some adaptation to challenge, but far too many farmers, and
local agro-ecological conditions. However, especially women, do not have regular
countries need to consider carefully access to such services. Modern extension
what research strategy is best suited features many different kinds of advisory
to their specific needs and capacities. services as well as service providers from
Some countries, particularly those with the public, private and non-profit sectors.
too few funds to run strong national While there is no standard model for
research programmes, may need to focus delivery of extension services, governments,
on adapting the results of international private businesses, universities, NGOs, and
research to conditions at home. Others, producer organizations can play the role
with bigger research budgets, may also of service providers for different purposes
xv
framework. Governments must support the agricultural innovation are far more
development of effective and representative complex than ever before; the world
producers organizations and ensure that must create an innovation system that
they participate in policy-making processes. embraces this complexity. Agricultural
innovation strategies must now focus
not just on increasing yields but also
Key messages of the report on a more complex set of objectives,
including preserving natural resources
Family farms are part of the solution and raising rural incomes. They must
for achieving food security and also take into account todays complex
sustainable rural development; the policy and institutional environment for
worlds food security and environmental agriculture and the more pluralistic set
sustainability depend on the more of actors engaged in decision-making.
than 500million family farms that An innovation system that facilitates
form the backbone of agriculture in and coordinates the activities of all
most countries. Family farms represent stakeholders is essential.
more than nine out of ten farms in the Public investment in agricultural R&D
world and can serve as a catalyst for and extension and advisory services
sustained rural development. They are should be increased and refocused to
the stewards of the worlds agricultural emphasize sustainable intensification
resources and the source of more than and closing yield and labour productivity
80 percent of the worlds food supply, gaps. Agricultural research and advisory
but many of them are poor and food- services generate public goods
insecure themselves. Innovation in productivity, improved sustainability,
family farming is urgently needed to lower food prices, poverty reduction,
lift farmers out of poverty and help etc. calling for strong government
the world achieve food security and involvement. R&D should focus on
sustainable agriculture. sustainable intensification, continuing
Family farms are an extremely to expand the production frontier but in
diverse group, and innovation sustainable ways, working at the system
systems must take this diversity into level and incorporating traditional
account. Innovation strategies for knowledge. Extension and advisory
all family farms must consider their services should focus on closing yield
agro-ecological and socio-economic gaps and raising the labour productivity
conditions and government policy of small and medium-sized farmers.
objectives for the sector. Public efforts Partnering with producers organizations
to promote agricultural innovation can help ensure that R&D and extension
for small and medium-sized family services are inclusive and responsive to
farms should ensure that agricultural farmers needs.
research, advisory services, market All family farmers need an enabling
institutions and infrastructure are environment for innovation, including
inclusive. Applied agricultural research good governance, stable macroeconomic
for crops, livestock species and conditions, transparent legal and
management practices of importance regulatory regimes, secure property
to these farms are public goods and rights, risk management tools and
should be a priority. A supportive market infrastructure. Improved
environment for producers and other access to local or wider markets for
community-based organizations can inputs and outputs, including through
help promote innovation, through government procurement from family
which small and medium-sized farmers, can provide strong incentives
family farms could transform world for innovation, but farmers in remote
agriculture. areas and marginalized groups often
The challenges facing agriculture and face severe barriers. In addition,
the institutional environment for sustainable agricultural practices often
xvii
have high start-up costs and long pay- and linkages that enable different actors
off periods and farmers may need in the innovation system farmers,
appropriate incentives to provide researchers, advisory service providers,
important environmental services. value chain participants, etc. to share
Effective local institutions, including information and work towards common
farmers organizations, combined with objectives.
social protection programmes, can help Effective and inclusive producers
overcome these barriers. organizations can support innovation by
Capacity to innovate in family farming their members. Producers organizations
must be promoted at multiple levels. can assist their members in accessing
Individual innovation capacity must markets and linking with other actors
be developed through investment in in the innovation system. They can also
education and training. Incentives are help family farms have a voice in policy-
needed for the creation of networks making.
Innovation
in family farming
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
Family farms and the challenges for in the world are smaller than 2 hectares. In
world agriculture low- and lower-middle income countries,
farms smaller than 5 hectares manage the
Family farms are key to ensuring long-term majority of agricultural land and produce a
global food security. To feed a growing substantial portion of food.
population and eradicate poverty and hunger, However, many of these small and
family farms must be encouraged to innovate medium-sized farms have limited access to
more and become more productive while resources and low levels of productivity. If
also preserving natural resources and the they are to help meet additional demand
environment. for food, preserve natural resources and
Demand for food and agricultural products fight poverty, they will need not only to
is increasing because the worlds population is grow more, but also to do so sustainably.
growing to a projected 9.6billion people in In rural areas with high levels of poverty,
2050 and incomes are rising in much of the enhancing the agricultural productivity of
developing world. To satisfy added consumer poor farmers can contribute dramatically
demand, by 2050 global food production will to poverty alleviation and the reduction
have to increase by 60percent from its 2005 of undernourishment and malnutrition.
2007 levels (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). According to the World Bank, gross domestic
However, producing this extra food will place product (GDP) growth originating in
additional stress on land, water and biodiversity, agriculture raises the incomes of the poorest
which are already scarce and showing worrying households by at least 2.5 times as much as
signs of degradation. In addition, climate growth in other sectors does (World Bank,
change is likely to make it even more difficult 2007c).
to produce more food, and agriculture itself is Small family farms will not be able to
a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. increase their productivity and sustainability
Meanwhile, in spite of remarkable advances in unless they are prepared to innovate and
poverty reduction in many countries, significant are supported in doing so. Given the critical
levels of poverty remain in large parts of the importance of family farming to food
developing world, especially in rural areas. security, natural resource preservation and
Family farms are central to meeting all of poverty reduction, promoting innovation
these challenges. More than nine out of ten in family farming should be a priority for
farms in the world are family farms, making politicians and policymakers. The broad
them the dominant form of farming in participation and involvement of farmers
most countries.1 The vast majority of farms including smallholders, women and
disadvantaged or marginalized groups will
1
See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the concept of family be essential.
farming.
4 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE 1
Pathways and instruments for sustainable productivity growth in agriculture
Pathway Types of instruments Discussed in the report
Source: FAO.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
5
resources (e.g., labour) for use in other process whereby individuals or organizations
economic activities. Innovation can enhance bring existing or new products, processes
the sustainability of production and/or the and forms of organization into social and
provision of important ecosystem services, economic use to increase effectiveness,
both of which are more important than competitiveness, resilience to shocks or
ever as natural resources become more environmental sustainability, thereby
constrained and more degraded. contributing to achieve food and nutrition
There are many definitions of innovation security, economic development and
in academic literature. Innovation in an sustainable natural resource management
economic context was first defined by (FAO, 2012a).
Schumpeter (1939) as the introduction of These definitions characterize innovation
a new production method, new inputs as a process rather than a discrete event,
into a production system, a new good or and see it as fundamentally creative and
a new attribute of an existing good, or a geared towards solving problems. Innovation
new organizational structure.2 He clearly may not necessarily involve completely new
distinguished innovation from invention: knowledge or products: using existing inputs
Innovation is possible without anything we in new ways is also innovative.
should identify as invention, and invention Innovation is a complex process in
does not necessarily induce innovation which the different pathways and related
(Schumpeter, 1939). Hayami and Ruttan instruments (Table 1) come into play
(1971) elaborated the concept of induced simultaneously. Innovation in agriculture
technological innovation in agriculture involves multiple actors such as farmers,
(Box1). producers organizations and cooperatives,
The Organisation for Economic Co- private companies in supply and value chains,
operation and Development (OECD) and extension services and national research
Eurostat (2005) define innovation as the organizations. Previously, the main focus
implementation of a new or significantly of innovation was research as a means of
improved product (good or service), or generating technologies and knowledge,
process, a new marketing method, or a and extension as a means of disseminating
new organizational method in business the results of research. Recently, increasing
practices, workplace organization or attention has also been given to other
external relations, which clearly mirrors sources of innovation. Potential benefits
Schumpeters earlier definition. According to can be fully realized only if technologies
the World Bank (2010b), innovation means and knowledge reflect real demand and
technologies or practices that are new to a are applied in combination with the
given society. They are not necessarily new in ideas, practices and experience of farmers
absolute terms, but they are being diffused themselves.
in that economy or society. This point is Increasingly therefore, innovation is
important: what is not disseminated and perceived as taking place within a network
used is not an innovation. This definition of actors individuals and organizations
emphasizes that the recombination and use that fosters interaction and learning. The
of existing knowledge is innovation. The innovation system has gained prominence
World Bank (2010) also mentions the social as an analytical concept that comprises the
benefits of innovation: Innovation, which is different sources and avenues of innovation
often about finding new solutions to existing and the relationships among the different
problems, should ultimately benefit many actors involved in innovation processes.
people, including the poorest. Since 2006, the World Bank, among others,
A working definition elaborated by FAO has promoted this concept as a tool for
and specific to the agricultural context enhancing agricultural innovation beyond
focuses on the impact of innovation on food the strengthening of research systems
security, sustainability and development (World Bank, 2006). The World Bank defines
outcomes: Agricultural innovation is the the innovation system as a network of
organizations, enterprises and individuals
focused on bringing new products, new
2
As cited in Phillips et al., 2013. processes and new forms of organization
6 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
into economic use, together with the There is need to design an agricultural
institutions and policies that affect their innovation system that meets the challenges
behaviour and performance (World Bank, of today, recognizes the importance of
2008b). The innovation system concept family farmers, and supports these farmers
recognizes the importance of technology in innovating and achieving sustainable
transfer but also considers the social and productivity increases. The challenges
institutional factors that establish linkages facing world agriculture are much more
and networks among the various actors complex than they were in the 1940s and
involved. 1950s, when the institutions that gave rise
BOX 1
Induced technological innovation in agriculture
7
to the Green Revolution the first major This report focuses on promoting
wave of organized agricultural innovation agricultural innovation among family farms.
were created. Since then, many of these However, it is important to recognize the
institutions international agricultural limitations of such innovation for rural
foundations and research centres, national development and poverty alleviation.
agricultural research and extension systems, Promoting agricultural innovation
state marketing boards, cooperative among family farms is a central part of
producer groups, and the broader enabling an agriculture-based poverty alleviation
environment for innovation have been strategy, but additional options are needed
disbanded, underfunded or allowed to for many small family farms. These farms,
drift from their central mission. Today, new especially the smaller ones, often already
actors have entered the scene, including have diversified livelihoods and sources of
private agricultural research and technology income; agriculture cannot be their sole or
companies and a range of civil society even their main source of income if they
providers of agricultural advice, creating a are to escape poverty. To alleviate rural
much more complex institutional context for poverty while avoiding socially undesirable
agricultural innovation. urbanization rates, many small family farms
Increasing urbanization, globalization and must be able to rely on other sources of
demand for high-value products have also income to supplement, and sometimes
dramatically changed the global context replace, the income derived from farming.
for agriculture. Value chains are becoming Vibrant rural economies and a range of other
more important, and pressure is mounting policy instruments are needed (e.g., social
to preserve the natural resource base for protection and rural development), which
agriculture, especially given advancing are beyond the scope of this report.
climate change. Innovation systems must
allow family farmers to meet these different
challenges. There is need to: Structure of the report
design innovation systems that are
responsive to farmers needs and Chapter 2 discusses family farming, its
demands by: prevalence, role and capacity to innovate.
- making farmers protagonists in, rather Chapter 3 addresses the challenge of
than mere recipients of, agricultural sustainable productivity growth and some of
innovation; the barriers and disincentives that prevent
- supporting the development of farmers from adopting more productive and
organizations, linkages and networks sustainable practices. Chapter 4 looks at trends
involving family farms; and issues in agricultural research and the
promote collective and individual challenge of ensuring that research responds
capacity to innovate; to the needs of family farms. Chapter 5 deals
recognize the diversity of family farms with extension and advisory services, and how
and of the demands and needs of to make them more inclusive and responsive.
different household members and value Chapter 6 discusses how to promote innovation
chains, which call for tailored policies capacity more broadly. Chapter 7 summarizes
and targeted reforms. the reports main conclusions.
8 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
2. Family farming
At least 90percent of the worlds farms of very small production units into larger
are family farms according to the most more economically viable farms (News China
commonly used definitions.3 Family farms Magazine, 2013).
represent the dominant form of agriculture
in most countries. They range in size from
tiny, subsistence holdings to large-scale, How prevalent are family farms?
commercial enterprises, and they produce
a vast range of food and cash crops in Based on the most common elements of
all kinds of agro-ecological conditions. definitions of family farms, and information
However, the enormous heterogeneity of obtained from several rounds of national
family farms means that general policy agricultural censuses, FAO made a broad
prescriptions are unlikely to be relevant for assessment of the number of farms in
the whole category. It is necessary to look at the world and the worldwide prevalence
the different characteristics of farms within of family farms for this report. The best
the broad category of family farming. This available proxy measure for farms reported
chapter briefly reviews the state of family in the censuses is the agricultural holding.4
farming in the world, focusing on smaller The total number of agricultural holdings
family farms. in the world was estimated at about
570million.
As noted in the previous section, most
What is a family farm? definitions of a family farm require that the
farm be partially or entirely owned, operated
Although there is no universal agreement and/or managed by an individual and her/
on what constitutes a family farm, many his relatives. Information on the legal status
definitions refer to factors related to of the agricultural holder5 can be found in
ownership and management, labour use, and a number of agricultural censuses. In almost
physical or economic size. In a survey of 36 all the countries where this information
definitions of family farm, nearly all specify is available,6 for more than 90percent of
that the farm is owned, operated and/or farms (and often close to 100percent)
managed at least partly by a member of the
household; many specify a minimum share
of labour contributed by the owner and his/ 4
FAOs theoretical definition of an agricultural holding is
her family; many set upper limits on the an economic unit of agricultural production under single
land area or sales of the farm; and some also management comprising all livestock kept and all land used
fully or partly for agricultural production purposes, without
set upper limits on the share of household
regard to title, legal form, or size. Single management may be
income derived from non-farm activities exercised by an individual or household, jointly by two or more
(Garner and de la O Campos, 2014). Even this individuals or households, by a clan or tribe, or by a juridical
broad range of definitions does not capture person such as a corporation, cooperative or government
agency (FAO, 2005a). FAO encourages countries to use an
the diversity of concepts incorporated under operational definition based on this theoretical definition
the term (Box 2). At least one country is when carrying out their agricultural censuses.
reportedly using the conceptual definition of 5
FAO defines the agricultural holder as the civil or
a family farm to promote the consolidation juridical person who makes the major decisions regarding
resource use and exercises management control over the
agricultural holding operation. The agricultural holder
has technical and economic responsibility for the holding
3
Unless otherwise noted, the analysis in the first two and may undertake all responsibilities directly, or delegate
sections of this chapter is based on a background paper by responsibilities related to day-to-day work management to
Lowder, Skoet and Singh (2014). Data used are from several a hired manager (FAO, 2005a).
rounds of the FAO World Programme for the Census of 6
52 countries report data on the legal status of the
Agriculture, especially FAO (2013a) and FAO (2001). agricultural holder.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
9
for more than 90percent of farms in most
BOX 2
countries. With about 570million farms in
The definition of family farming for the
the world, the total number of family farms
International Year of Family Farming
consequently exceeds 500million.10
Family farms occupy large tracts of the
The International Steering Committee worlds farmland and contribute substantially
for the International Year of Family to the worlds food supply. However, family
Farming, celebrated in 2014, developed farms are likely to own less than 90percent
the following conceptual definition of of total farmland, because non-family farms
family farming: tend to be larger. Lack of data makes it
Family Farming (which includes all impossible to assess the exact share at the
family-based agricultural activities) is global level, but in a sample of 30 countries11
a means of organizing agricultural, an average of about 75percent of farmland
forestry, fisheries, pastoral and is held by households or individuals.12 Based
aquaculture production which is on the share of land held by family farms and
managed and operated by a family and the value of food production in each country,
predominantly reliant on family labour, it is estimated that family farms produce
including both womens and mens. The more than 80percent of the food in these
family and the farm are linked, co-evolve countries.13 Using a different methodological
and combine economic, environmental, approach, Graeub et al. (forthcoming)
social and cultural functions. also concluded that there are more than
500million family farms in the world and
that they supply most of the worlds food
Source: FAO, 2013b. production.
11
FIGURE 1
Shares of the worlds farms, by region, income group and size
24% India
9% East Asia and the Pacific, excluding China (14)
35% China
72% <1 ha
12% 12 ha
10% 25 ha
3% 510 ha
1% 1020 ha
2% >20 ha
Note: The first two panels are based on a sample of 161 countries, which account for almost 570 million farms;
the number of countries is shown in parentheses. The third panel shows farms by farm size covering a total
of about 460 million farms in 111 countries. Countries included are those for which data were available from
the World Census of Agriculture and for which the World Bank (2012a) provided regional and income groupings.
All figures are rounded.
Source: Authors compilation using data from FAO (2013a; 2001) and other sources from the FAO Programme for the World
Census of Agriculture. See Lowder, Skoet and Singh (2014) for full documentation. See also Annex tables A1 and A2.
12 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 2
Distribution of farms and farmland area worldwide, by land size class
Percentage
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
<2 25 510 1020 2050 50100 100200 200500 5001 000 >1 000
Land size class (ha)
markets, and policies related to land tenure 2014). However, based on different sources
and property rights (Fan and Chan-Kang, of information, some experts suggest that a
2005; Eastwood, Lipton and Newell, 2010; reversal of this trajectory has already occurred
HLPE, 2013). Farm size tends to rise with or is imminent (Jia and Huang, 2013; Nie and
development (Eastwood, Lipton and Newell, Fang, 2013).
2010). However, the number of small farms
has grown over the past few decades, with
average farm sizes decreasing since 1960 Characteristics of family farms
in most low- and middle-income countries,
where the majority of the worlds farms are With family farms constituting the dominant
located (Table 2). Rapid population growth in way of organizing agricultural production
the rural areas of many sub-Saharan African across all levels of development, small and
and Asian countries has led to an increased medium-sized farms often account for the
number of landholders and thus a general dominant shares of land and production,
decrease in the average farm size. The trend especially in low- and middle-income
has been less clear in Latin America and the countries. The prevalence of family farms
Caribbean, where average farm size has in general and of smaller farms in low- and
increased in some countries and decreased lower-middle-income countries has several
in others. Meanwhile, average farm size has causes. Family farming is the dominant form
increased in nearly all high-income countries, of agriculture because employing family
where farms have been consolidating as the members rather than hiring workers usually
agricultural population declines. makes economic sense. For many crops,
More recent evidence suggests that the farming large areas requires significant
trend towards smaller farms continues in numbers of hired labourers, who require
Africa, but that consolidation may have supervision. Supervision costs often outweigh
begun in Asia (Masters et al., 2013). In China, any benefits from economies of scale,
agricultural censuses show a decrease in making family farms the best solution in
average farm size from 0.7hectares in 2000 to many agricultural contexts. The size of family
0.6hectares in 2010 (Lowder, Skoet and Singh, farms is also often limited to what the family
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
13
FIGURE 3
Distribution of farms and farmland area, by land size class and income group
TABLE 2
Number of countries exhibiting a decrease or increase in the average size of
agricultural holdings, 19602000, by income and regional groupings
country grouping Decrease Increase Neither clear increase
nor decrease
High-income countries 6 25 4
Low-income countries 12 2 1
Lower-middle-income countries 24 2 0
Upper-middle-income countries 19 5 1
South Asia 5 0 0
Sub-Saharan Africa 15 3 1
Note: A few countries included in the regional groupings could not be classified by income groups.
Sources: Authors compilation using data from the FAO Programme for the World Census of Agriculture shown in FAO
(2013a). See Lowder, Skoet and Singh (2014) for full documentation.
can manage without excessive use of hired of the characteristics of farm households27
labour. in eight low- and lower-middle-income
In developing countries, families often countries (Table 3). While agricultural
farm small plots while also engaging in censuses are representative of all the farms
many off-farm activities. The size of family in a country, household surveys cover
farms, their production patterns and their farm households, but are not necessarily
use of inputs, land and labour depend on representative of all the farms in the country.
agro-ecological conditions, relative prices of Household surveys generally miss farms that
inputs and outputs, the size of the family, are not family-owned (most of which are
and the functioning of the labour market. In large farms) and thus underestimate the
many cases, labour markets are constrained contribution of large farms.28 The surveys
and other remunerative employment suggest that there is a high incidence of
opportunities scarce, so household labour poverty among farm households in all
is relatively abundant and more workers eight countries, with significant shares of
are employed per hectare. In general, farm households falling below the national
smaller farms tend to overuse labour. As poverty line (Figure 4).
a result, they tend to have higher land The household surveys reveal the
productivity than larger farms, but lower importance of smaller family farms to
labour productivity, with negative effects on
per capita income. In spite of their higher
land productivity, small family farms face
27
From this point on the words household and family
are used interchangeably.
considerable constraints to their overall 28
For most countries, it is not possible to determine
productivity. Farm equipment is more basic the extent to which larger farms are excluded from the
on smaller family farms than on larger ones. household surveys based on available agricultural census
Small farms also tend to be less commercially reports. In Nicaragua, for example, the largest farm size
cohort in the agricultural census is 200 ha and above
oriented and have more restricted access (FAO, 2013a), which represents 30percent of the countrys
to markets for inputs, outputs, credit and farmland and averages about 475 ha per farm (see Annex
labour. table A2). This suggests that there are several farms larger
than those described in the household survey data (in
Research conducted by FAO (see also
which farms were a maximum of 282hectares) and that
Rapsomanikis, 2014) used household income these larger farms contribute significantly to overall food
and expenditure surveys to examine some and agricultural production.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
15
TABLE 3
Number, average size and maximum size of household farms in surveys, by country
Country Number of farms Average farm size Maximum farm size
FIGURE 4
Poverty headcount ratios for farm household populations
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percentage
Notes: National poverty lines are used to calculate the poverty headcount ratio, which is the prevalence of poverty
among the population living in farm households. Cross-country comparisons are not possible due to the use of
country-specific poverty lines.
Source: Rapsomanikis, 2014.
food production. Although it does not responsible for the greater part of food
indicate what share of national agricultural production by households (Figure 5).30 As
production is attributable to family farms, they use less than 50percent of the total
a sample of seven countries shows that the agricultural land operated by family farms,
smallest 75percent of family farms29 are these smaller family farms have higher land
productivity than do the larger ones.
29
Throughout the rest of this chapter, farms are considered
by size using the farmland quartile. Each quartile contains
25percent of the farms in the country sample: the first
quartile contains the smallest farms, and the fourth 30
Their share of total national food production may be
contains the largest. The 75percent smallest farms are smaller, depending on the extent to which larger farms are
those in the first three quartiles. excluded from the sample.
16 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 5
Shares of agricultural production and agricultural land operated by the smallest
75 percent of family farms
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bangladesh Bolivia Kenya Nepal Nicaragua United Viet Nam
Republic
of Tanzania
Land and labour productivity higher land productivity but use more labour
It has long been recognized that farmers per hectare than their larger counterparts.
in the developing world are efficient: they FAOs analysis of the household survey data
use the resources available to them in the supports the inverse productivity hypothesis,
most productive way, given the incentives as smaller farms appear to have higher yields
and opportunities they have. Schultz (1964) for selected crops than larger family farms
highlighted the efficiency of farmers using (Figure 6).
traditional agricultural methods in Senapur, A broader measure of land productivity,
India and Panajachel, Guatemala: these the value of agricultural production per
farmers were efficient but poor and being hectare of agricultural land, also shows a
poor had limited land and capital. wide gap between the more productive,
In more recent years, a large body of smaller family farms and the larger ones
literature on land productivity by farm size (Figure 7). With labour productivity, the
has shown a phenomenon referred to as situation is the reverse: in most of the sample
the inverse productivity relationship, i.e. countries, smaller family farms show far lower
in a number of countries smaller farms have labour productivity than do larger farms. In
higher crop yields than do larger ones (Larson short, smaller family farms have higher land
et al., 2013; Barrett, Bellemare and Hou, productivity but lower labour productivity
2010).31 Larson et al. (2013) show that in each than larger family farms. Low labour
country in a sample of sub-Saharan African productivity implies lower household incomes
countries, smallholder maize farmers have and consumption. The surveys show that
households with smaller farms have lower
incomes and consumption and substantially
31
The inverse productivity relationship refers to situations higher poverty rates than do households with
within countries and with comparable agro-ecological larger farms (Rapsomanikis, 2014).
and socio-economic conditions. Both land and labour
Low labour productivity often reflects
productivity are higher on large farms in high-income
countries using advanced agricultural technologies than on an excessive use of farm labour generally
small farms in low-income countries. unpaid family labour resulting from a
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
17
FIGURE 6
Selected crop yields, by farm size
Bolivia (maize)
Ethiopia (teff)
Kenya (maize)
Nepal (rice)
United Republic
of Tanzania (maize)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
FIGURE 7
Land and labour productivity, by farm size
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
0 2 4 6 8 10
Constant 2009 PPP dollars
Notes: Land productivity is measured as the value of agricultural production (constant 2009 PPP dollars) per hectare of
agricultural land. Labour productivity is the value of agricultural production (constant 2009 PPP dollars) per worker day,
with workers including a measure of hired labour as well as household labour for all countries except Viet Nam, where
no information was available on hired labour. The estimates of labour productivity are more appropriate for analysis by
farm size within each country, rather than for cross-country analysis, because the method for estimating labour days varies
from one survey to the next, based on the data available.
Source: FAO, 2014a.
19
FIGURE 8
Average shares of household income, by source and farm size
1st quartile
Bangladesh 2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
1st quartile
Bolivia 2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
1st quartile
Ethiopia 2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
1st quartile
Kenya 2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
1st quartile
Nepal 2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
1st quartile
Nicaragua
2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
1st quartile
Viet Nam 2nd quartile
3rd quartile
4th quartile
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Note: Non-farm income includes wages for non-farm wage employment and income from non-farm self-employment;
in other words, it is income earned through non-agricultural activities.
Source: FAO, 2014a.
Use of modern farming technology family labour, there would also seem to
Low labour productivity on the smallest be much scope for increasing agricultural
farms may reflect not only the excessive productivity by promoting greater use of
amount of labour used, but also the existing technologies and farming processes.
farming technologies applied. In many of There are also major differences in the
the countries considered, both large and volumes of inputs used among countries.
small farms make limited use of mechanized Rapsomanikis (2014) notes that the
technologies and improved seeds, but use average quantity of fertilizer used on farms
is particularly limited on smaller farms (regardless of farm size) in many of the
(Figure9). Although the low levels of countries in the household survey sample
mechanization reflect the abundance of is far lower than that used in high-income
20 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 9
Shares of farms using selected modern farming technologies, by farm size
Bangladesh
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage
Bangladesh
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percentage
countries in Europe. However, in nearly all family farms strive to get as much as possible
the eight sample countries, smaller farms use from their small plots by applying larger
more seeds and fertilizer per hectare than amounts of both labour and key inputs.
larger farms (Figure 10). This is similar to the
situation with regard to labour and reflects Access to markets
many factors, including economic choices Many small family farms grow food for
and differences in farming systems and agro- only their own consumption, but there is
ecological conditions. It suggests that smaller often scope for increasing their productivity
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
21
FIGURE 10
Intensity of seed and fertilizer use, by farm size
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
PPP dollars
Note: Quantity of seed and fertilizer multiplied by their respective market prices (in constant 2009 PPP dollars).
Source: FAO, 2014a.
and output. For this to happen, it is crucial farmers sell a smaller average share of
that small farms enter markets. Such market their agricultural production than do larger
entry may involve greater specialization farmers (Figure 11). To some extent, this
or improved marketing of the diversified reflects the greater availability of marketable
product mixes that small farmers are surplus production on larger farms, but
often expert at producing. In most of is likely also to reflect the choice of farm
the household survey countries, smaller products (e.g. food crops versus cash crops).
22 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 11
Shares of agricultural production sold, by farm size
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Nepal
Nicaragua
United Republic
of Tanzania
Viet Nam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage
23
The inclusive business model approach, with markets, especially in remote areas,
which includes poor people in value chains represent the second type of barrier that can
as producers, employees and consumers, often prove insuperable. Overcoming these
represents a successful methodology for barriers depends on making mainly public
integrating farmers into modern value investments in physical and institutional
chains (Box 3). Other approaches include market infrastructure. The development
local food procurement from family farmers of effective producers organizations
by different levels of government (local, and cooperatives is also important and
regional and national).33 Not only can public can contribute decisively to reducing the
purchase schemes guarantee food security transaction costs associated with market
for vulnerable populations and income for entry by generating economies of scale.
family farmers, but they may also enhance Arias et al. (2013) discuss the determinants
collective action to strengthen family of smallholders participation in agricultural
farmers marketing capacities and ensure markets, focusing on the heterogeneity of
greater inclusiveness. Developing these smallholder producers, and outline how
market linkages requires investment in small to formulate appropriate measures to
and medium-sized food processors and small- facilitate improved market participation.
scale traders at the retail and wholesale They argue that attempts to improve
levels. smallholders productivity will have limited
To enter commercial agriculture, farmers success if smallholders linkages to markets
need not only to focus on technical are not strengthened simultaneously,
innovation, but also to run their farms and that limited participation in markets
as businesses. This involves making is a result not necessarily of lack of
management decisions on what to produce commercial orientation, but of constrained
and where, and on how and to whom to sell. choices in a risky environment. However,
Farmers must also decide whether and how smallholders are heterogeneous and
to compete in local or export markets, how will react in diverse ways to new market
to finance investments, how much to invest opportunities. Key areas for integrating
in product differentiation, how to organize smallholders into markets include supporting
farm production and how to join with their inclusive market development, promoting
neighbours for collective action. Entering farmers organizations, enhancing market
commercial agriculture therefore requires information and other support services, and
developing new kinds of individual and helping smallholders to manage risk.
collective decision-making skills supported by In summary, innovation in family
advisory and business services. farming is strongly linked to increased
For most smallholders, the transition commercialization, with innovation and
from small-scale subsistence farming to commercialization depending on and
innovative, commercial production is reinforcing each other. Efforts to promote
fraught with difficulties. Two types of innovation and enhance innovation capacity
barrier can hinder market entry by small in family farming need to go hand in hand
family farms (Barrett, 2008). One is lack with efforts to improve market integration.
of access to productive assets, financing However, it is important to recognize that
and technologies, which prevents farmers not all family farms are alike and not all
from generating marketable surpluses and have the capacity for innovation in farming
adding value to their production; women and for commercial production. Some family
farmers are particularly vulnerable to this farms may find it more effective to pursue
barrier. Enabling small family farms to higher incomes and improved livelihoods
produce a marketable surplus, including through non-farm activities. However, the
through investment in productive assets and two options are not mutually exclusive, as
innovation, is a precondition for improved some members of farming families may
market integration of small family farms. move into non-farm activities. Innovation
The excessive transaction costs of engaging linked to increased commercialization, and
diversification of farm household incomes
33
For a description of the Brazilian experience see can take place in parallel and can be
Graziano da Silva, Del Grossi and de Franca, 2010. mutually reinforcing.
24 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 3
Inclusive business models
Inclusive business models include the and skills on the part of the poor, and
poor on the demand side as clients restricted access to financial products and
and customers, and on the supply side services (UNDP, 2008). Businesses that
as employees, producers and business create such models range widely and
owners at various points in the value include large multinational companies,
chain. They build bridges between large domestic companies, cooperatives,
business and the poor for mutual benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, and
(UNDP, 2008). The term inclusive not-for-profit organizations (UNDP, 2010).
business was first coined by the In agriculture, the inclusive business
World Business Council for Sustainable approach can promote smallholders
Development in 2005, and the concept inclusion in value chains. According to
has received growing interest (Tewes- the International Center for Tropical
Gradl et al., 2013). Agriculture (CIAT), Linking smallholders
For companies, the inclusive with modern markets is not only a
business model approach can provide matter of strengtheningfarmersskills
opportunities by developing new and capacities to become better
markets, driving innovation, expanding business partners. It also requires
the labour pool and strengthening theprivate sectorto adjust its business
value chains; for the poor the approach practices to smallholders needs and
can enable them to become more conditions to stimulate sustainable
productive, increase their incomes, trading relationships (CIAT, 2012).
and generally empower them (UNDP, FAO implemented this approach in 16
2008). Clearly, the market conditions in countries across Africa, the Caribbean and
which the poor operate can make such the Pacific, and showed that improved
business models risky and expensive for business relationships can strengthen
companies. Major constraints include farmers access to inputs and financial and
limited market information, ineffective business services without overreliance on
regulatory environments, inadequate public and project subsidies. Working with
physical infrastructure, missing knowledge a preferred buyer with the capacity to
In terms of their capacity for commercial These are very broad categories; the
production and innovation, family farms can exact composition of farms and the relative
be broadly classified as: importance of different farm types will vary
large family farms, which are essentially from country to country. The categories
large business ventures although they may also change over time because of socio-
are managed by a family and use mostly economic mobility influenced by such factors
family labour; as public policies and support, access to
small or medium-sized family farms that: markets, and public and private investment.
- are already market-oriented and However, within these broad categories
commercial, generating a surplus family farms will have differing potential
for the market (local, national or for innovation and diverse needs for an
international); or agricultural innovation system (Box 4).
- have the potential to become market- The large farms in the first category
oriented and commercial given the are the most effectively integrated into
right incentives and access to markets; well-functioning innovation systems.
subsistence or near-subsistence Their most important needs are an
smallholders who produce essentially for enabling environment for innovation and
their own consumption and have little or production, adequate infrastructure, and
no potential to generate a surplus for the public research in agriculture to ensure
market. long-term production potential. They may
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
25
forecast demand has also been effective inclusive business model approach, lessons
in stimulating production. FAO is currently from its application, and guidance on
preparing a publication that will present implementation in different market and
the framework and rationale behind the commodity contexts.
Commercial
farmers
Source: Based on an original diagram prepared by Nicholas Sitko, Michigan State University, United States
of America, for a presentation to the Agro-Enterprise Learning Alliance for Southern and Eastern Africa in 2010.
also need incentives to ensure that they surplus and are unlikely to be integrated into
apply sustainable practices and provide key effective agricultural innovation systems.
environmental services. For these farmers, agricultural innovation
Farmers in the middle category are can contribute to improved livelihoods
less likely to be integrated into effective and food security but, because their farms
innovation systems, but have significant are so small and often remote, agriculture
potential for innovation. In many countries, cannot be their sole or even main means
these farmers are likely to represent a of support if they are to live decent lives.
large share of agriculture in terms of Reaching millions of such very small farmers
land and number of farms. Promoting with relevant research, extension and
agricultural innovation in this group can innovation policies may be costly, hence
have a major impact on food security and the need to enhance social innovation and
poverty alleviation and be transformative of communication technologies to reduce
world agriculture. Producers organizations costs. These farmers clearly need off-farm
and cooperatives can play a central role and non-agricultural livelihood options
in helping these farmers establish links to to supplement their farm incomes, and
markets and value chains and integrating effective social protection to help them
them into effective innovation systems. escape poverty. Overall rural development
Farmers in the third category have little can enable them to diversify their sources
or no capacity to produce a marketable of income and reduce their dependence on
26 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 4
What strategy should be taken towards small family farms?
Should governments support smallholder efficient one. Lipton (2006) argues that
agriculture or larger farms? What are the emphasizing smallholder development
best ways to improve food security and partly compensates for policies in rich
reduce poverty? Should strategies focus on and poor countries that are, on balance,
smaller family farms? This is an old debate urban-biased.
that continues today. This edition of The State of Food and
There is little agreement among Agriculture recognizes the importance of
development economists regarding the sustainable productivity growth in small
most effective government strategies for farm agriculture for poverty reduction
small farms. In a recent article, Larson and improved food security. It argues
et al. (2013) recognize a bias towards that there are two interrelated pathways
institutional support for smallholder- along which small farmers productivity
led strategies, despite heated debate may be increased: the development
among agricultural economists regarding and application of new technologies
how appropriate such strategies are. The and practices, including farmer-led and
authors summarize the debate as follows: formal research; and the application and
Collier (2008) charges that the adaptation of existing technologies and
development community has stressed less- processes, in combination with traditional
innovative smallholder agriculture over integrated farming systems. It also
more-productive commercial agriculture stresses the importance of recognizing
because of an overly romantic view of the diversity among family farms and the
peasant farming. Hazell et al. (2010) need to improve labour and other markets
counter that promoting smallholder to provide supplementary or alternative
agriculture is a more equitable approach forms of employment and income
to rural development, as well as a more generation for poor farming families.
the income they generate from their small to bear in mind that there are limitations
plots, and may also induce some of them to to policies for encouraging innovation in
take up completely alternative employment agriculture. It may not be easy, cost-effective
opportunities.34 or even possible to reach all farmers in the
In conclusion, the diversity of family family farm category. Alongside developing
farms, both among and within countries, innovation capacity, there is a strong need
means that analysis and general policy to promote options for different livelihood
recommendations are unlikely to be relevant strategies for farming families and their
for the entire category, whether they relate members, in the framework of broader
to innovation or other domains. There rural development. Governments will
is need to differentiate and distinguish need to develop their own strategies for
between different types of farm and different farm categories, based on their
different types of farming household within specific policy objectives, social and equity
this broad category. It is also important considerations and the costs of different
options. For some governments, for instance,
it may be important to support smallholder
34
Fan et al. (2013) classify smallholder farms into three
farming as a means of avoiding excessively
similar broad types: commercial smallholder farms,
subsistence farmers with profit potential, and subsistence rapid rural-urban migration; these
farms without profit potential. The authors argue that governments may choose to focus support to
different strategies are needed for these different types of innovation on very small farms. Others may
farms, depending also on the stage of development in the
wish to achieve similar objectives through
country. For subsistence farms without profit potential, the
authors point to the need for education and training in policy instruments that focus on broader
non-farm employment as a key area of intervention. rural development.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
27
Key messages skewed. A few large farms control vast
tracts of land, while 70percent of all
Family farms are of critical importance to farms are smaller than 5hectares and
food security, poverty reduction and the together control less than 5percent
environment, but they must innovate to of the land. Innovation policies in such
survive and thrive. settings should carefully consider the
There are more than 500million family role of farming in the livelihood and
farms in the world. They account for food security strategies of the smallest
more than 90percent of the worlds farms.
farms and produce most of the worlds Small and medium-sized family farms in
food. low- and middle-income countries often
These family farms are very diverse in have limited access to resources and low
terms of size, livelihood strategies and levels of labour productivity. At the same
other characteristics, including their time, they also have major potential to
capacity to innovate in agriculture. increase their incomes and production
This diversity means that innovation through sustainable intensification.
strategies must be designed to reflect Access to markets is an essential driver
the needs, constraints and capabilities of innovation in family farms. Improving
of different types of family farm the market integration of family farms
located in different socio-economic and that have the potential for commercial
institutional settings: production is fundamental to promoting
- In low- and lower-middle-income innovation.
countries, farms up to 5hectares In addition to farming, most farming
account for about 95percent of all families especially on small farms
farms, occupy almost two-thirds of depend heavily on non-farm sources of
agricultural land, and produce the employment and income. Policies and
greater part of national food output. programmes to promote innovation
Even these small and medium-sized on family farms must go hand in hand
family farms are very diverse, as with policies promoting overall rural
are the countries in which they are development, to offer additional or
located. alternative employment and income-
- In upper-middle-income countries, generating opportunities in rural areas
the size distribution of farms is highly for farming families.
28 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
29
FIGURE 12
Global food price index in nominal and real terms, 19602012
250
200
150
100
50
0
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Nominal prices Real prices
Notes: The World Bank's global food price index is calculated using prices for fats and oils, grains and various other food
commodities. The index measures movements in international prices and not necessarily domestic prices. The World Bank's
Manufactures Unit Value Index is used to deflate the nominal price index and produce the real price index.
Source: World Bank, 2013.
considerable ecological, social and economic Biodiversity is also at great risk. The
cost. Most of the increased production must Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
therefore be met through higher yields and concluded that loss of biodiversity through
increased cropping intensity (Alexandratos human activities has been faster over the past
and Bruinsma, 2012). 50 years than ever before in human history.
In the past, agricultural production growth Up to 75percent of the genetic diversity of
has often damaged land and water resources crops has already disappeared (Thomas et al.,
because of unsuitable management practices 2004). Deforestation poses one of the gravest
or deliberate choices to increase agricultural threats to biodiversity.
productivity at the expense of ecosystem Climate change is another growing threat.
services. Today, 25percent of land is highly Agriculture will suffer from the consequences
degraded and a further 8percent moderately of changing climate: rising temperatures, pest
degraded (FAO, 2011a). Agriculture is by far and disease pressure, water shortages, extreme
the biggest user of water, and its current weather events, loss of biodiversity, and other
demands on the worlds water resources are impacts. Negative effects on crop yields are
unsustainable. Inefficient use of water for more frequent than any positive impacts, and
crop production depletes aquifers, reduces overall production is expected to continue
river flows, degrades wildlife habitats and to suffer, although there could be benefits
has led to salinization of irrigated land. By in some places (IPPC, 2014). Production will
2025, an estimated 1.8billion people will be also be increasingly variable. Developing
living in countries or regions with absolute countries which are already more vulnerable
water scarcity, and two-thirds of the worlds to climate change because they are less
population could be subject to water stress equipped economically and technologically to
(Viala, 2008). defend themselves will suffer more severe
30 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
consequences than developed countries, and slower in recent decades than in the 1960s
the gap between developed and developing and 1970s (Figure 13). The question is whether
countries will widen (IPPC, 2014; Padgham, yield growth rates can match the growth in
2009). It is also important to remember that demand over the coming decades.
agriculture itself, as currently conducted, There are also very large differences in
is a significant contributor to climate crop yields between high-income and low-
change. Crop and livestock production income countries (Table 4). Yields of wheat
is responsible for 13.5percent of global and rice in low-income countries are currently
greenhouse gas emissions and is a major about half those in high-income countries;
driver of deforestation, which accounts for the relative difference is even larger for
an additional 17percent of global emissions maize. These variations suggest that there is
(IPPC, 2007). significant technical potential for increasing
In summary, sustainable productivity growth crop yields in low- and middle-income
is indispensable for at least three reasons: to countries by adopting improved technologies
produce more food with the available natural and practices. However, yield disparities may
resources so as to meet growing demand; to also reflect differences in agro-ecological
contribute to poverty reduction by raising conditions and cropping intensities, and not
farm incomes and lowering food prices; and just in technologies and practices.
to preserve and improve the natural resource The yield gaps calculated for major crops in
base and reduce and offset negative impacts various regions of the world take these factors
on the environment. into account and provide a better indication
of the technical potential for yield increases
Increasing land productivity to meet in several countries and regions (Table 5).
demand for food They represent the differences between
While substantial additional amounts of food current yields and those that could be
must be produced in coming decades without obtained through optimization of inputs and
major expansion of cultivated area, growth management given existing agro-ecological
in yields of major staple crops wheat, rice conditions. Estimated yield gaps expressed
and maize at the global level has been much as a percentage of potential yields exceed
FIGURE 13
Average annual rates of change in global crop yields, by decade and crop
Percentage
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Wheat Rice Maize
Notes: Rate of growth in crop yield (tonne/ha) is estimated using the OLS regression of the natural logarithm of crop
yield on time and a constant term.
Source: Authors' calculations using FAO (2014b).
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
31
TABLE 4
Annual average crop yields, by income grouping, 200112
Country grouping Wheat Rice Maize
(Tonnes/ha)
Notes: Country groupings are the same as those used by the World Bank (2012).
Source: Authors calculations using FAO (2014b).
TABLE 5
Estimated yield gaps for major crops, by region, 2005
Region Yield gap
(Percentage)
Sub-Saharan Africa 76
Central Asia 64
North Africa 60
Pacific Islands 57
South Asia 55
South America 52
Western Asia 49
Northern America 33
Southeast Asia 32
East Asia 11
Notes: Crops included are: cereals, roots and tubers, pulses, sugar crops, oil crops and vegetables.
Source: FAO, 2011a.
50percent in most developing region and are the factors of production such as land and
largest in sub-Saharan Africa, at 76percent, labour, and through the adoption of new
and lowest in East Asia, at 11percent. technologies and practices. The capacity of
Reducing yield gaps could have high returns family farms, especially small family farms,
for food security, nutrition and incomes to respond to higher prices and increase
(Box5). Reducing yield gaps for female their production depends on three factors:
farmers can have high returns as well (Box 6). household access to assets, including natural
The higher prices on international resources, labour and capital; the degree to
agricultural markets experienced over recent which the family farm is connected to markets;
years and projected for the future should and the functionality of those markets,
provide an incentive for reducing yield gaps, especially their integration with international
both through increased use of inputs and markets (FAO, 2013e). Given their diversity
32 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 5
Impact of reducing yield gaps
OECD and FAO (2012) examined the to have significant positive food security
possible effects of a hypothetical reduction effects through improved access to food,
of yield gaps by one-fifth between 2012 even though 33percent of the increased
and 2021.1 For cereals, the yield increases cereal harvest is projected to go into biofuel
at the end of the projection period would production. The effect on farm incomes
amount to 7percent for wheat and coarse could not be determined (as yields would
grains and 12percent for rice. Overall increase while prices declined), but should
cereal production would increase by vary across farm types and sizes. The authors
5.1percent. The increases in developing nevertheless urge caution in interpreting
countries would be larger, while the results, because the hypothetical yield
production would decline in developed increases are assumed to come at zero cost,
countries. Another result of the increases i.e. solely through better management
in yields would be a 2.7 percent decrease practices and improved seed varieties, but
in area harvested, as marginal land would without increased fertilizer use.
be taken out of production.
The increased production would lead to
major declines in world prices. For cereals, 1
The impact was arrived at by comparing a baseline
at the end of the projection period, prices scenario for 20122021 in the Aglink-Cosimo model
would be almost 45percent lower for rice with a scenario in which crop yields increased
and between 20 and 25percent lower for relative to the baseline scenario in a manner that
wheat and coarse grains. Smaller but still reduced the gaps proportionately by one-fifth in all
significant declines would be recorded for developing countries by the end of the projection
oilseeds, vegetable oils and protein meals. period 20122021. All the changes expressed are
The price reductions should be expected relative to the baseline values in 2021.
and heterogeneity, small family farms will be (Figure 14). Part of this growth may reflect an
affected by these factors in different ways. increase in physical output per worker and
Some smallholders are likely to intensify part a shift in production towards higher-
production on existing plots by adopting new value crops and livestock products.
technologies and practices, while others will However, labour productivity has been
increase the amount of land in production; growing much more slowly in low-income
however, some smallholders will be unable than in high-income countries; as a result, the
to benefit from improved opportunities gap between high- and low-income countries
because of their remoteness from and/or lack is very large (Table 6). For the period 2001
of participation in markets. Effective market 2012, the value of agricultural production per
linkages are essential for providing small worker in low-income countries was less than
family farms with the incentives they need to 3percent of that in high-income countries
contribute to closing yield gaps. (about 500 constant 20042006 international
dollars per annum versus about 27000).
Increasing labour productivity for There is therefore great potential for labour
poverty alleviation productivity growth in low-income countries.
As discussed in the previous chapter, reducing The widening gap in labour productivity
poverty in rural areas requires substantial between low- and high-income countries
increases in labour productivity and thus is largely because the rural labour force
rewards to labour input on family farms. has been growing rapidly in low-income
Globally, labour productivity in agriculture, countries relative to opportunities for
measured as the total value of crop and employment outside agriculture. Farmers
livestock production per person employed in this country group have been using
in the sector, has been increasing over the increasing amounts of labour on available
past two decades, following earlier declines land to increase output per hectare (Table6).
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
33
FIGURE 14
Average annual rates of change in global agricultural labour productivity, by decade
Percentage
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
196171 197181 198191 19912001 200112
Notes: Labour productivity is the value of agricultural production per person employed in agriculture. Annual rates of
change for the decade are estimated using the OLS method. The value of agricultural production is expressed in constant
200406 international dollars and is net of intermediate production such as seed and feed. For more details, see Notes
on the annex tables.
Sources: Authors' calculations using FAO (2014b; 2008a). See Annex table A3.
TABLE 6
Average annual level and rate of change in labour productivity, by income grouping
Country grouping Average labour Average annual change (19612012) in:
productivity (200112)
Value of Agricultural Labour
agricultural workers productivity
production (value/worker)
Note: Country groupings are the same as those used by the World Bank (2012a).
Sources: Authors calculations using FAO (2014b; 2008a). See Annex table A3.
low-income countries, a focus on these farms et al. (2012) suggest that no single indicator
is essential to achieve significant reductions in can comprehensively monitor human impact
rural poverty. on the environment, and argue that the
Slow growth in labour productivity in low- environmental impact of production and
and lower-middle-income countries is partly consumption should be assessed through
due to a lack of alternative employment and a suite of indicators combining ecological,
income for farming families. Accelerating carbon and water footprint impacts.
labour productivity growth in agriculture Resource use efficiency in agriculture
will therefore require not only innovation on can be improved at various levels and in
family farms, but also promotion of economic different ways and requires continuous
growth, development and employment and dedicated research and innovation.
in other sectors. Efforts to increase labour At the farm production level, resource
productivity in family farming through efficiency is directly affected by appropriate
innovation must go hand in hand with choice of outputs and inputs and improved
policies to create off-farm employment and management of input application, including
development. applying the correct amounts at the right
times. In crop production, reducing yield
Using natural resources more efficiently gaps is key to achieving growth in food
and sustainably output from an increasingly constrained
As natural resources become more constrained, resource base. Technologies exist that can
using them more efficiently is a key element ensure more sustainable farming and forestry
of agricultural sustainability. Agriculture management, prevent erosion of land and/
uses many resources and affects the natural or avoid pollution of water. However much
resource base in complex ways. Agriculture more innovation is needed, with sharing of
also often provides multiple outputs and knowledge to allow adaptation to specific
services, which can include valuable ecosystem local conditions (United Nations, 2011);
services. For example, in addition to providing appropriate practices are generally very
protein-rich food, livestock in mixed farming context-specific and knowledge-intensive.
systems often consume waste products from Close interaction among researchers,
crop and food production, help control insects extension systems and farmers should thus
and weeds, produce manure for fertilizing, be promoted to foster exchanges between
and provide draught power for ploughing science and traditional knowledge and
and transport. An important function of experience (Place and Meybeck, 2013).
ruminant livestock is converting biomass that
is not digestible by humans, for instance from
wastelands and semi-deserts. Family farming and sustainable
Natural resource use efficiency refers to the productivity growth
amounts of natural resource inputs used to
produce a given quantity of output. It includes Family farms are central to sustainable
both the quantity of resources used (e.g. productivity growth in agriculture. As seen
hectares of land or litres of water) and the in the previous chapter, in many countries,
possible deterioration in the quality of natural especially low- and lower-middle-income
resource stocks (e.g. soil erosion, biodiversity countries, small and medium-sized family
loss, nutrient runoff) (Place and Meybeck, farms occupy a large share of agricultural land
2013). Given the complexity of agricultural and are responsible for much national food
production and resource use, measuring production. They are therefore indispensable
resource use efficiency through a single metric in both narrowing productivity gaps and
is not appropriate; different metrics are likely ensuring sustainability of production.
to be relevant when considering different However, helping family farms to produce
resources and outputs in different contexts. more, to increase their incomes and to do
The level of greenhouse gas emissions per so sustainably represents a major challenge
unit of food produced is an indicator that (Box7).
stimulates increasing global concern. In water- Neither the old paradigm of input-
scarce areas, water use (amount and quality) intensive farming nor reliance on traditional
per unit of product is a critical indicator. Galli practices alone can solve future problems
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
35
BOX 6
Closing the gender gap in agricultural productivity
BOX 7
Sources of productivity growth
Agricultural output growth can be achieved economic efficiency. The key to sustainable
in various ways. The two most common agricultural growth lies in growth in total
methods have been to use more inputs factor productivity (TFP). TFP indicates that
including labour per hectare, and to land, labour and inputs overall are being used
expand into new lands. However, both more efficiently as a result of technological
have often been associated with high rates progress, adoption of innovative practices
of environmental degradation and low and human capital development.
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
World Low-income Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income
countries income income countries
countries countries
B - Worldwide, by decade
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
196170 197180 198190 19912000 200110
Irrigation Inputs/Land
Sources: Calculations by Fuglie, using Economic Research Service (2013) and updated information presented
in Fuglie (2012).
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
37
of sustainable productivity growth in the
face of climate change. Future productivity
growth in agriculture must be based
on sustainable intensification (Box 8).
Fuglie (2012) decomposes sources Sustainable agricultural intensification
of agricultural output growth over practices are techniques that produce more
the last half century (Figures A and output from the same area of land while
B) into four components: increased reducing negative environmental impacts and
input use, including labour, per enhancing natural capital and the flow of
land area; expansion of irrigation; environmental services (Pretty, 2008; Pretty,
extension into new land area; Toulmin and William, 2011). Many such
and TFP. Globally, over the period practices fall into the category of sustainable
19612010, TFP growth accounted land management, such as soil conservation,
for about 40percent of total growth improved water management, diversified
in agricultural production (FigureA), agricultural systems and agroforestry. More
becoming increasingly dominant conventional yield-enhancing technologies
over time (Figure B). In high-income such as improved seed varieties and mineral
countries, TFP growth has been the fertilizers are also valuable options, especially
main contributor to agricultural if combined with greater attention to
output growth. In low-income efficient use of these inputs.
countries, TFP growth has been Sustainable technologies and practices
modest, and most output growth that have already been adopted and have
has been achieved by expansion of generated large productivity gains in
agricultural areas. However, over the developing countries include low-tillage
last decade TFP growth has increased farming, crop rotation and interplanting,
significantly in low-income countries water harvesting and recycling, water-
too. efficient cropping, agroforestry, and
In the long term, agricultural integrated pest management (United Nations,
development must be based on 2011). Other technologies hold promise
sustained levels of TFP growth, for improving the resistance of crops to
which in turn depend on innovation pests and extreme weather, reducing food
capacity. Low levels of TFP growth contamination and reducing greenhouse gas
in several developing countries, emissions. However, farmers may need to be
including in sub-Saharan Africa, encouraged to apply such practices.
present a clear challenge. In Family farms are generally part of larger
countries with a large proportion productive landscapes, which frequently
of small family farms, promoting include forests, pastures or fisheries. Food
innovation among these farms holds security, nutrition, biological and genetic
the key to ensuring TFP growth. diversity, water and soil retention and
However, TFP growth does not recharge, pollination and a range of income-
by itself ensure environmental generating possibilities depend on these
sustainability, and TFP estimates broader dimensions, and innovation must
do not normally take into take them into account. Family farmers
account the possible negative decisions about their crop, livestock, fishery
effects of agricultural activities or off-farm activities, and the types of
on environmental resources. practice they use depend on their particular
Environmental impacts such as agro-ecological and market conditions, the
biodiversity loss, nutrient runoff incentives they face, and specific household
into water bodies, greenhouse characteristics such as wealth, education, age
gas emissions and other negative and gender.
effects are generally not included in To secure their livelihoods, households
calculations of TFP (IFPRI, 2012), but routinely make decisions on the allocation of
they must be considered. productive resources to economic activities
based on the relative return or benefit
that each economic activity provides. The
38 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 8
Save and grow: a new paradigm for sustainable intensification of smallholder
cropproduction
In its publication, Save and grow (FAO, boosts yields while restoring soil health;
2011), FAO proposed a new paradigm controls insect pests by protecting their
of intensive crop production that is both natural enemies rather than by spraying
highly productive and environmentally crops with pesticides; reduces damage
sustainable. FAO recognized that over the to water quality through judicious use
past half century, agriculture based on of mineral fertilizer; and uses precision
the intensive use of inputs has increased irrigation to deliver the right amount of
global food production and average per water when and where needed. The save
capita food consumption. In the process, and grow approach also builds resilience
however, it has depleted the natural to climate change and reduces greenhouse
resources of many agro-ecosystems, gas emissions through, for example,
jeopardizing future productivity, increased sequestration of carbon in soil.
and added to the greenhouse gases However, the adoption of such
responsible for climate change. an approach requires more than
Save and grow addresses the crop environmental virtue alone: farmers must
production dimension of sustainable see tangible advantages in terms of higher
food management. In essence, it calls incomes, reduced costs and sustainable
for greening of the Green Revolution livelihoods, and must be compensated for
through an ecosystem approach that draws the environmental benefits they generate.
on natures contributions to crop growth, Policy-makers need to provide incentives,
such as soil organic matter, water flow such as rewarding good management of
regulation, pollination, and biocontrol agro-ecosystems and expanding the scale
of insect pests and diseases. It offers a of publicly funded and managed research.
rich toolkit of relevant, adoptable and Action is needed to establish and protect
adaptable ecosystem-based practices that rights to resources, especially for the most
can help the worlds 500million farming vulnerable people. Developed countries
families to achieve higher productivity, can support sustainable intensification by
profitability and resource use efficiency, providing assistance to the developing
while enhancing natural capital. world. There are also huge opportunities
This ecofriendly farming often combines for sharing experiences among developing
traditional knowledge with modern countries through South-South
technologies that are adapted to the needs cooperation.
of small-scale producers. It encourages
the use of conservation agriculture, which Source: FAO, 2011c.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
39
manure to reduce nitrogen runoff to water or found that across the 12.8million ha in these
emissions to the atmosphere could benefit the projects, crop yields rose by an average factor
environment, but would probably increase of 2.15, but it took from three to ten years to
costs or reduce returns to the farmer. achieve these gains.
In the absence of mechanisms for The magnitude and breadth of climate
compensating farmers for providing change impacts on agricultural systems,
environmental services and public goods, and the contribution of agriculture
or for penalizing them for any negative to greenhouse gas emissions make
environmental impacts of their farming consideration of climate change issues,
practices, farmers will base their decisions as well as national development and
exclusively on the private costs and benefits food security objectives, particularly
that they derive from the adoption of specific important when determining the best
technologies and practices. Incentives are agricultural intensification strategies for
needed if agricultural systems are to provide a specific location. It is also important to
greater environmental benefits, as farmers consider adaptation to climate change
are not generally rewarded for doing so. The as well as mitigation through reduced
available policy options for ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions and increased
environmental benefits are incorporated into carbon sequestration. FAO has developed
farm management decisions include financial an approach that specifically considers
penalties and charges, regulatory approaches, the trade-offs among multiple objectives,
removal of perverse incentives that may together with the need for institutions,
unintentionally encourage unsustainable policies and investments to support
practices, and payment for environmental innovation and the adoption of relevant
services (FAO, 2007). agricultural practices (Box 9). The approach
However, the trade-offs between private does not recommend specific technical
returns and public environmental benefits solutions but provides tools for assessing
are not universal; sustainability and increased different technologies and practices in
production may be compatible through the relation to climate change mitigation and
adoption of appropriate practices. Power adaptation as well as national development
(2010) argues that trade-offs between and food security objectives. It will allow
production and other ecosystem services (or countries to make more informed choices
disservices) must be evaluated in terms of based on their national priorities.
spatial scale, temporal scale and reversibility
and that better methods for evaluating Short-term costs versus long-term
ecosystem services may increase the potential returns
for win-win solutions; however, appropriate The timing of the associated costs and
management practices are critical to realizing benefits can also be critical for farmers
the benefits of ecosystem services and decisions and capacity to adopt sustainable
reducing disservices from agriculture. practices. Frequently, introducing new land
Assessments in developing countries uses or management practices leads to a
have demonstrated that farm practices that temporary decline in net farm income because
conserve resources can improve the supply of upfront costs. This decline can prove a
of environmental services and increase major deterrent to adoption, even when
productivity (FAO, 2011c). A review of 286 the new practices would lead to significant
agricultural development projects in 57 returns to the farmer in the long run. The
poor countries showed how 12.6million inability to bear short-run costs to obtain
farmers had improved crop productivity while long-term benefits is often the reason why
increasing water use efficiency and carbon farmers do not adopt practices that offer
sequestration and reducing pesticide use; crop higher returns (Dasgupta and Maler, 1995;
yields increased by an average of 79percent McCarthy, Lipper and Branca, 2011).
(Pretty et al., 2006). In another study, Pretty et Even where there are substantial, private,
al. (2011) analysed 40programmes in 20 sub- long-run returns to sustainable practices,
Saharan African countries where sustainable different types of cost may constitute
intensification practices were introduced significant barriers to adoption by farmers
during the 1990s and 2000s. The authors (McCarthy, Lipper and Branca, 2011). Direct
40 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 9
Climate-smart agriculture for food security
41
costs are the most obvious, and include of technologies, mainly because of the
investment costs, which cover expenditure on problems they face in obtaining access to
equipment, machinery, and the materials and complementary inputs and services (Ragasa
labour required to build on-farm structures; et al., 2014), (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014). In
and variable and maintenance costs, which addition, some of the technologies promoted
are recurrent expenses, such as for seeds, for enhancing productivity, adding value and
fertilizers or additional hired labour. saving labour, energy or costs do not benefit
Indirect costs are less obvious but can be women or respond to their needs. Women
even more important. They are related to generally have lower levels of education, less
foregone opportunities, transactions and risk. access to inputs, credit and information, and
Opportunity costs represent the foregone smaller plots than their male counterparts
income associated with allocating resources to (FAO, 2011b). They have less capacity to incur
one activity at the expense of another. These direct, opportunity or transaction costs to
costs can often be quite high in the initial implement new practices. Women are more
phase of adoption of sustainable practices and likely to choose activities with lower risks
can extend for some time after. For instance, but also lower returns (FAO, 2011b). In many
in many cases, adoption of improved practices countries, outmigration by men seeking to
may lead to temporary declines in levels of diversify household income emphasizes the
production and a consequent loss of income, importance of enhancing womens access to
even though previous production levels are information, resources and markets.
eventually reached and surpassed. Sociocultural norms and traditions may
Transaction costs include the costs impose additional barriers to women,
of obtaining information, bargaining including by restricting their mobility and
and negotiation, and monitoring and ability to engage in trading. For example,
enforcement. Costs associated with women often lack the cash to pay transport
searching for and processing information fares or purchase vehicles, and there is
on various techniques and practices can be additional concern regarding the safety of
a significant barrier to adoption. Improving women travelling long distances alone. In
information and advice to farmers through some countries, restrictive cultural traditions
effective advisory services and networks also circumscribe womens use of transport
(including effective use of information and facilities (Starkey, 2002; Ragasa et al., 2014).
communication technology [ICT]) is critical in All of these challenges hamper womens
reducing these costs. capacity to innovate.
Risk costs are generally associated with Very few technology adoption
uncertainty regarding the magnitude and programmes address the specific limitations
variability over time of the benefits that faced by women in given contexts (Meinzen-
the farmer expects to realize from adopting Dick et al., 2011). It is particularly important
different practices. Adopting any new to consider the time burdens of womens
technology may be perceived as a risky domestic chores. Potential solutions involve
investment, as farmers need to learn new greater participation by women farmers
practices and typically do not have access to in the design of sustainable practices, and
insurance. Insecure tenure rights can increase related training. Labour-saving technologies
the risk associated with investing in new that reduce womens chores, increase their
technologies and practices, especially if the labour productivity and give them greater
benefits take time to materialize. control over the outputs of and incomes
from their work will have considerable
impact on the well-being of women farmers
Gender barriers to the adoption of (Doss and Morris, 2001; Ragasa et al., 2014).
sustainable production The need for labour-saving technologies
is even greater in households affected by
Women face particular constraints in their HIV/AIDS, as women often bear the double
ability to innovate and their access to burden of producing food and caring for
information, inputs and services. Studies the sick. In sectors and areas where women
have found that women are often much suffer disadvantages because of gender
slower than men in adopting a wide range norms, extension and other interventions
42 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
43
BOX 10
Determinants of farmers adoption of technologies and practices: case studies
fromAfrica
In an analysis of what determines farmers specific characteristics of their plots and the
adoption of two conservation farming overall wealth level of their households.
(CF) practices (minimum/zero tillage and For example, farmers with larger plots
planting basins) in Zambia, Arslan et adopted practices with longer pay-off
al. (2013) found that extension services periods (soil and water conservation,
and rainfall variability are the strongest maize-legume intercropping, and tree
determinants. High rainfall variability planting) but used less mineral fertilizer,
increases the likelihood of adopting which provides a more immediate return.
CF practices. Having the possibility of Tenure security also makes it more likely
marketing output is also relevant, as that farmers adopt longer-term investment
the more selling points there are in a strategies.
village, the more likely households are to In Ethiopia, Cavatassi et al. (2010)
adopt. Constraints to adoption include found that risk factors, coupled with
the limited potential for growing cover access to markets and social networks,
crops during the dry season in Zambia. drive farmers decisions to adopt modern
The experience of CF adoption in Zambia varieties (MVs). Farmers appear to use MVs
illustrates that farmers select practices that mainly to mitigate moderate risks, while
are suitable to their agro-environmental the farmers who are most vulnerable to
conditions and that can be expected to extreme weather events are less likely to
secure increased marketable output in use them. MVs appear best suited to more
the presence of an institutional setting favourable production areas with adequate
and available infrastructure for trading. supplies of complementary inputs, while
However, extension services remain key to landraces appear to perform better than
ensuring adoption of CF practices. MVs in the production of subsistence
In Malawi, Asfaw et al. (2014) reviewed crops under marginal conditions and with
barriers to adoption of four agricultural limited use of complementary inputs.
practices that address climate change Developing varieties that are more
and other objectives (maize-legume adaptable to climate change and extreme
intercropping, soil and water conservation, weather events will therefore become
tree planting, and use of organic fertilizer), increasingly important for food security
and two practices for improving average as climate change progresses. Preserving
yields (improved maize varieties and use the richness of diversity within crops and
of inorganic fertilizers). Long-term climate promoting access to a diverse range of crop
patterns were found to play a significant varieties may also be significant factors
role in the adoption of farm management in facilitating farmers ability to manage
practices. The findings also indicate that their risk, and social networks will have an
farmers choose technologies based on the essential role in providing such access.
Farmers often face barriers that hamper promoting the wider adoption of
their capacity to innovate, including improved practices by family farms.
high initial costs of new practices and Incentives may be needed to encourage
limited access to inputs, information, farmers to adopt farming practices that
markets and technologies suited to combine increased production with
their needs. Such constraints are often environmental benefits and services.
much more severe for women farmers, Locally developed knowledge needs
who have less access to productive to be supplemented with research
resources and face significant social and development suited to local agro-
hurdles to innovation. Closing this ecological and socio-economic conditions
gender gap can lead to major increases to provide farmers with suitable options
in sustainable agricultural productivity for sustainable productivity increases.
growth. Local institutions such as producers
Governments, international organizations can play a crucial role
organizations and non-governmental in facilitating family farmers access
organizations (NGOs) must help farmers to markets, capital, information and
overcome barriers to innovation for financing and in helping them to
sustainable intensification. Secure adopt improved practices. Effective
property and tenure rights, transparent participation of women in such
marketing institutions and good organizations can help close the gender
infrastructure are key elements of gap in access to productive resources.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
45
4. Agricultural research and
development for family farms
BOX 11
The cumulative impacts of agricultural R&D
Evenson and Gollin (2003) assessed the possibly because the varieties initially
impact of high-yielding varieties of 11crops introduced from Asia and Latin America
developed by the international agricultural were not suited to local conditions. With
research system (through the Consultative the subsequent development during the
Group on International Agricultural 1980s of varieties that were better adapted
Research [CGIAR]) and adopted in to Africa, the rates of adoption increased,
developing countries between 1960 underscoring the importance of location-
and 2000, during the Green Revolution sensitive breeding.
period of rapid agricultural innovation. Evenson and Gollin also estimated the
The study highlighted important features contribution of high-yielding varieties to
of the development and adoption of yield growth, crop production and food
agricultural technologies, most notably security. They found a very significant
the cumulative nature of the process. contribution in Asia and Latin America,
The development of varieties suitable which was stronger in the period
for conditions in developing countries 19812000 than in the previous decade.
was most rapid for crops such as rice and In sub-Saharan Africa, the contribution
wheat, where developers could draw on was significantly smaller but increased
advanced research previously undertaken over the 19812000 period. The authors
in developed countries. For crops with concluded that without the development
little or no substantive prior research, of high-yielding varieties, crop yields
such as cassava and tropical beans, it took would have been 19.5 to 23.5percent
much longer to develop suitable varieties. lower; crop production would have been
Nonetheless, by 2000 improved varieties 13.9 to 18.6percent lower in developing
had been developed for all 11 crops, countries, but 4.4 to 6.9percent higher in
with more than 8 000 modern varieties developed ones; crop prices would have
released by more than 400 public breeding been 35 to 66percent higher, which would
programmes in more than 100 countries. have contributed to crop area expansion
According to Evenson and Gollin, in with concomitant environmental effects;
many regions of the world, the adoption and calorie intake would have been 13.3to
rate was quite rapid for most crops. In sub- 14.4percent lower, with the proportion of
Saharan Africa, however, the initial rate children malnourished 6.1 to 7.9percent
and extent of adoption were much lower, higher.
countries, where research spending is already is concentrated in very few large countries
quite high (Figure 15). Upper-middle- (Figure 17). For example, China, India and
income countries have seen a particularly Brazil account for 19, 7 and 5percent of
sharp acceleration in expenditure growth global expenditures respectively. Together,
in the last decade, largely because of rapid these three countries plus the high-income
expansion of the public agricultural R&D countries account for 79percent of global
budget in China. public spending on agricultural R&D, while
An increasing share of public agricultural the share of low- and middle-income
R&D is being conducted in middle-income countries is just 21percent. Low-income
countries, especially upper-middle-income countries expenditures on agricultural
countries (Figure 16), while public R&D R&D is particularly low, amounting to
is growing less rapidly in high-income only 2.1percent of the total in 2009, even
countries. In 2009, low- and middle- less than their 2.4percent share in 1960.
income countries accounted for more Spending on agricultural research staff
than half of global expenditures on public is an important indicator of long-term
agricultural R&D, but most of this spending commitment to public R&D (Box 12).
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
47
FIGURE 15
Average annual rates of growth in public expenditure on agricultural R&D,
by decade and income group
Percentage
10
0
World Low-income Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income
countries income income countries
countries countries
Notes: Simple average of annual rates of change in spending on agricultural research in each group for each decade.
Data exclude countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Source: Pardey, Chan-Kang and Dehmer, 2014.
FIGURE 16
Public expenditures on agricultural R&D, by income group
18
16
14
12
10
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
Note: Data exclude countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Source: Pardey, Chan-Kang and Dehmer, 2014.
48 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 17
Geographic distribution of public expenditure on agricultural R&D, 2009
5% Brazil
7% India
19% China
6% Sub-Saharan Africa
BOX 12
Investing in agricultural researchers
49
Private versus public investments maintain competitiveness in agricultural
Private companies have long been involved input markets that are characterized by
in agricultural R&D. Although data are increasing concentration (Fuglie et al.,
limited, private expenditure is estimated 2011).
to account for 3541percent of total
agricultural research expenditure (Pardey
and Beddow, 2013); however, the vast Investing in national research
majority of private research perhaps capacity
8994percent takes place in high-income
countries. Until recently, private agricultural In many countries, public investments in
R&D was concentrated in the mechanical agricultural R&D remain far too low relative
and chemical sectors, where companies to the sectors economic significance and
could develop proprietary products for the importance for poverty alleviation. A
market; recent decades have seen increasing commonly used indicator to assess countries
private investments in the life science sector, agricultural research efforts is the agricultural
driven partly by changes to the governance research intensity (ARI), which expresses
of intellectual property rights for biological national expenditure on public agricultural
innovations, which make it easier for private R&D as a share of agricultural GDP. Since
companies to appropriate the returns on the 1960s, ARI has increased substantially
their investments (Wright and Pardey, 2006). in upper-middle-income countries and very
Beintema et al. (2012) (based on Fuglie et strongly in high-income countries (Figure
al., 2011) estimate that private investment 18), mostly because of the sectors relative
in R&D in agriculture and food processing decline in overall GDP. In low- and lower-
increased from US$12.9billion in 1994 to middle-income countries, where agriculture
US$18.2billion in 2008 (in 2005 purchasing accounts for much larger shares of income and
power parity United States dollars). Primary employment, little progress has been made.
agriculture accounts for less than half of The higher ARI in high-income countries
this total, and its share has fallen from 51 is partly because these countries have more
to 46percent. There is little information knowledge-based economies and tend to
on private agricultural R&D in developing emphasize basic and maintenance research to
countries, but evidence from India (Pray sustain high levels of productivity (Beintema et
and Nagarajan, 2012) and China (Pal, Rahija al., 2012). In addition, public research agendas
and Beintema, 2012) suggests that it has tend to broaden at higher income levels, where
grown, and now accounts for 19percent there is more emphasis on environmental and
of total agricultural R&D spending in India food-safety issues, while developing countries
and 16percent in China (excluding food focus more on applied research to close
processing). productivity gaps and adapt technologies to
Although private-sector research is local conditions (Beintema et al., 2012).
growing, there is still need for strong There is no way to determine the right
public-sector involvement. In developing level of ARI. However, the United Nations
countries, there are several disincentives Economic and Social Councils (ECOSOCs)
to private agricultural R&D, including the resolution 2004/68, Science and Technology
high costs of serving small, remote farms, for Development, recommends that
the difficulty of protecting intellectual governments increase their overall R&D
property rights, unpredictable regulatory expenditure for science and technology to
systems, and less developed value chains at least 1percent of national GDP. For the
(Pardey, Alston and Ruttan, 2010). Much agriculture sector, countries in both the low-
private research in agriculture builds and the lower-middle-income groups are
on public research, which tends to overall far from this target, although there
concentrate on generating basic scientific are major differences within the groups.
findings rather than specific commercial While some countries have well-managed
applications (Pardey and Beddow, 2013). and -funded systems, others including some
Public research is particularly important for that are highly dependent on agriculture
generating science-based innovations in have low and/or declining levels of R&D
high-risk environments, and can also help expenditures and capacity.
50 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 18
Agricultural research intensity, averages by decade and income group
Percentage
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
World Low-income Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income
countries income income countries
countries countries
Funding public research and Other new approaches include push and
development pull mechanisms. Push mechanisms reward
In many countries, the main mechanism potential innovations ex ante, while pull
for funding national agricultural research mechanisms reward successful innovation
systems has traditionally been through ex post. Models for pull mechanisms include
block grants (also called core funding) prizes and challenge funds that reward
from government. These grants are used to achievements in technology development,
support research infrastructure, pay staff and such as high adoption rates, thereby creating
enable strategic research programmes. In strong incentives for researchers to select
many countries, however, core funding today appropriate projects and focus on developing
covers only salaries and not new investments products that family farmers will want to use
for upgrading research facilities or for (FAO and OECD, 2012).
research costs. Discontent with traditional Nevertheless, stable institutional funding,
funding mechanisms and the perceived lack including for infrastructure, is crucial for
of effectiveness of agricultural research long-term research capacity (Box 13).
in general have led to the introduction of Project-based funding can help to promote
alternative funding methods. competition within the research system, but it
For example, specific kinds of research can has higher transaction costs. Newer research
be directly commissioned from a provider. funding mechanisms such as CGS can be
Through competitive grant schemes (CGS), used to fund short-term projects, but should
funds can be allocated to innovative, high- complement rather than replace institutional
quality and focused research proposals that funding (Echeverra and Beintema, 2009). An
are selected in a competitive and transparent evaluation of CGS and agricultural research
manner (Echeverra and Beintema, 2009). in Brazil, Colombia, Nicaragua and Peru
This system has been used extensively in concluded that grants are most likely to
developed countries and, from the 1990s, make a sound and lasting contribution when
some developing countries, such as in they complement relatively strong public-
Latin America, where the World Bank has sector involvement, and that to be able to
encouraged its use (World Bank, 2009). compete, research institutions must have a
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
51
minimum budget and a critical mass of staff the crop, livestock, forest, fisheries, natural
(World Bank, 2009). resources and environmental sectors. National
These new mechanisms for funding research institutes should also forge effective
research can be important drivers in the links with farmers, including smallholders and
innovation system. However, a major women, in order to respond better to local
challenge for governments is to find a needs and conditions.
balance between funds for basic research
and for applied research, and between International partnerships
stable, institutional funding and project- or Basic scientific research findings can be
programme-based funding tied to specific transferred from one location to another
objectives and missions. Basic research and can be considered as global public
requires a minimum number of qualified goods while many findings from applied
researchers, so small countries may prefer to agricultural research must be adapted to
prioritize applied research in allocating their local agro-ecological conditions and cultural
limited national funds. preferences and constitute national or local
public goods. Technology that has simply
been transferred from other parts of the
Partnerships for enhanced world or from international research centres,
effectiveness of public research and without local adaptive research, will have
development little value; all countries therefore need
some degree of domestic research capacity
As all countries have limited financial and (Herdt, 2012). Most countries rely on a
human resources for agricultural research, combination of international and domestic
they must allocate their resources strategically. research. The appropriate balance for a given
Partnerships among national, regional and country will depend on its stock of domestic
international research organizations can research knowledge and its potential to take
create synergies, as can better coordination advantage of research results and technologies
and collaboration among researchers in developed elsewhere (spill-ins).
BOX 13
The importance of stability in funding agricultural R&D
Adequate levels of public funding for sources is significantly more volatile than
agricultural R&D are critical, but the government funding. The completion of
stability of funding is also important. large donor-funded projects can frequently
Stable long-term funding is essential for cause a financial crisis, forcing research
effective agricultural research, not least institutes to cut back on programmes and
because of the time it takes for research lay off staff.
projects to bear fruit. In the Agricultural The ASTI study calls for a long-term
Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) commitment to agricultural research
global assessment of agricultural R&D, from national governments, donors
Beintema et al. (2012) estimated the and development banks. It calls on
volatility of R&D expenditures for 85 governments to identify their long-term,
countries during the period 20002008. In national R&D priorities and design relevant,
low-income countries, average volatility focused and coherent programmes
was almost twice as high as it was in high- accordingly; recommends that governments
income countries, and considerably higher diversify sources of funding and develop
than in middle-income countries. reserve funds or other mechanisms to avoid
The highest volatility was found in sub- fluctuations in spending; and urges donors
Saharan Africa, where many countries rely and development banks to align funding
heavily on donors and development banks more closely with national priorities and to
for their non-salary research expenditures ensure complementarity and consistency
(Stads, 2011). Funding from these among their programmes.
52 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 19
Agricultural spill-in potential vis--vis domestic knowledge stock
10 000
1 000
100
10
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Share of world knowledge stock (percentage)
Notes: Excludes Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union countries. The horizontal and vertical axes are logarithmic
scales in base 10.
Source: Calculations by Pardey using data from Pardey and Beddow (2013).
To guide such strategic choices, Pardey and income countries that can focus on domestic
Beddow (2013) have developed indicators research and knowledge generation. In contrast,
of both the accumulated formal domestic countries with a low share of the worlds
knowledge developed by a country and the knowledge stock tend to have higher spill-in
potential for spill-ins (Figure 19). Domestic potential. These are mostly smaller countries
stocks of productive knowledge arise from and those with low per capita incomes. They
past research efforts. In Figure 19, the public would do well to focus their research efforts
stock of productive knowledge (calculated for on adapting knowledge developed elsewhere
2009) represents accumulated R&D spending for use by their own farmers.
over the period 19602009, taking into The implication is that research from the
account the delay between R&D spending rest of the world represents a substantial
and its impacts on productivity over time.36 source of a countrys potential to enhance
The potential for spill-in from other countries productivity, particularly as a means of
depends on the similarity in agro-ecological offsetting the historical underinvestment in
conditions and commodity mixes. agricultural R&D in lower-income countries.
Figure 19 illustrates the relationship between There is potential for increasing South-South
home-grown knowledge stocks and the cooperation in agricultural research between
potential spill-in in a number of countries, by countries with larger public-sector research
income group. Countries with high shares of the institutes such as Brazil, China and India
worlds agricultural knowledge stock (the first and smaller national agricultural research
axis) tend to have low potential for benefiting institutes in countries with more limited
from agricultural knowledge from elsewhere research capacity facing similar agro-ecological
low spill-in potential (the second axis). These challenges. It also underscores the importance
tend to be high-income or very large middle- of international research efforts that allow
countries with limited domestic capacity to
36
Applying results reported by Alston, Beddow and Pardey benefit from international research results and
(2010). focus on adaptive research (Box 14).
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
53
BOX 14
International and regional investments in agricultural R&D
Most research at the international level (FARA), the Forum for the Americas on
is carried out by the CGIAR Consortium, Agricultural Research and Technology
which currently includes 15 centres. The Development (FORAGRO) and the Central
first four of these centres were established Asia and the Caucasus Association
in the late 1950s and 1960s with of Agricultural Research Institutions
considerable financial support from the (CACAARI). These networks have
Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. During enhanced collaboration and coordination
the 1970s, the number of centres grew of agricultural research activities and
to 12 and funding increased, resulting in information sharing at the regional level.
a tenfold rise (in nominal terms) in total Some of them manage small competitive
CGIAR investments. Funding continued funding schemes (Beintema and Stads,
to increase during the 1980s, but more 2011). The European Initiative for
slowly. During the 1990s, more centres Agricultural Research for Development
were added but, although total funding (EIARD) facilitates the coordination
continued to grow, average spending per of European policy and support for
centre declined. Since 2000, spending has agricultural research for development.
again increased substantially, growing by Other recent initiatives are the World
31percent from 2000 to 2008 (in inflation- Bank-funded Eastern Africa Agricultural
adjusted United States dollars) and a Productivity Project (EAAPP) and the West
further 25percent between 2008 and Africa Agricultural Productivity Program
2011 (Beintema et al., 2012). In 2013, total (WAAPP), which invest in regional
CGIAR funding reached US$1billion. approaches to agricultural research.
A number of other organizations and Numerous bilateral and multilateral
institutions engage in international initiatives now aim to develop agricultural
research, mostly at the regional or innovation capacity in tropical countries.
subregional level. Since 2000, national The Group of 20 (G20) recently launched
agricultural R&D systems have established the Tropical Agriculture Platform (FAO and
research networks such as the Association OECD, 2012) to ensure better coherence
of Agricultural Research Institutions in the and coordination among these initiatives,
Near East and North Africa (AARINENA), focusing on capacity development in the
the Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural least-developed countries, over 90percent
Research Institutions (APAARI), the of which are located at least in part in the
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa tropics.
BOX 15
A publicprivate partnership in biotechnology in Thailand
White leaf disease is a serious condition disease. The second phase in 20072008
caused by phytoplasma specialized consisted in developing a white leaf disease
bacteria that attack plants in sugar test kit. Researchers from BIOTEC took the
cane. The disease is transmitted to the lead in the first phase, and the contractor
plant by the leafhopper Matsumuratettix carried out most of the design work in the
hiroglyphicus. Weeds that grow in and second. BIOTEC provided all funding in
around sugar cane farms are suspected the first phase and advanced 20percent of
carriers as they can be infected with project expenses for the second.
phytoplasma and often show symptoms The white leaf disease test kits developed
similar to sugar cane white leaf disease. in the project proved to be innovative and
To help combat this dangerous disease valuable worldwide. They enable farmers
in Thailands sugar cane industry, the to screen cane stalks for white leaf disease
National Center for Genetic Engineering before planting. This not only reduces
and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) cooperated losses, but also minimizes spread of the
with the private-sector sugar producer disease to healthy plants. The kits have
and miller Mitr Phol Sugarcane Research been commercialized domestically and
Center a subsidiary of the Mitr Phol internationally and sell for only THB500
Sugar Group and an independent (US$17) for a pack of ten, much less than
contractor to develop a rapid test for alternatives. Mitr Phol and BIOTEC receive
detecting white leaf phytoplasma in sugar revenue and royalty fees from sales. Mitr
cane. The detection method needed to Phol continues to promote use of the
be accurate, quick and simple to use, rapid test kit by sugar cane growers, with
economical and non-perishable. technical recommendations from BIOTEC
The project was divided into two phases. regarding R&D in the sugar cane industry.
The first phase in 20052006 included R&D
for an antibody able to detect white leaf Source: FAO, 2013c.
the time costs of maintaining relationships, which makes use of local resources, is site-
negotiating agreements and building trust appropriate and addresses the specific
among the partners (Spielman, Hartwich constraints, challenges and opportunities
and von Grebmer, 2007; Rausser, Simon and perceived at the local level (Wettasinha,
Ameden, 2000). For the private sector, loss of Wongtschowski and Waters-Bayer, 2008).
control over intellectual property rights can Local innovation engages local people in
be a significant concern. learning, inventing and adapting technologies
PPPs often have extremely long lead- and practices. Innovative farmers build on
times between initial investments and the existing knowledge and share it with other
achievement of objectives. In the light of this members of the community. Understanding
and the relative novelty of PPP arrangements, and supporting the processes of agricultural
there is as yet relatively little research innovation and experimentation are
documenting their effectiveness and impact. important for enhancing sustainable
productivity, which is strongly locality-specific
(Rling and Engel, 1989; Long and Long, 1992;
Fostering research and Scoones and Thompson, 1994)
development for family farms Small-scale farmers and communities
have shown great capacity to introduce
Farmer-led innovation and formal R&D productive innovations based on indigenous
Farmers are constantly experimenting, knowledge. These innovations have included
adapting and innovating to improve their developing seed varieties, designing soil
farming systems. Indigenous knowledge and water conservation methods, and
is a major driver of local innovation, introducing post-harvest and value-adding
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
55
technologies. Farmers have developed and been responding to climate-related stresses
used a range of land management practices for a long time, climate change is making the
to maintain and enhance soil fertility and development of new breeding activities and
productivity, including agroforestry, minimum technologies even more important, to address
tillage, terracing, contour planting, enriched challenges such as increased drought, higher
fallow, green manuring, and ground cover temperatures, more widespread flooding,
maintenance (Critchley, Reij and Willcocks, higher levels of salinity, and shifting patterns
1994). Specific measures and technologies of pest and disease outbreaks.
vary according to local biophysical, social and In other words, local knowledge and
economic conditions. traditional technologies are invaluable, but
However, scaling up and replicating they cannot substitute for modern research
these technologies is a challenge: farmer- and development: local knowledge and
led innovation is localized and confined farmer-led innovation on the one hand,
to the bounds of farmers knowledge and and formal research on the other must be
experience; indigenous knowledge is not seen as complementary. Understanding
uniformly spread throughout the community; traditional agricultural practices and
and each individual possesses only part of the how they may be combined with new
communitys knowledge. Smallholder farmers technologies and practices could lead to
very rarely document their knowledge, which significant gains in productivity while
is often implicit in their practices. Certain mitigating the risks associated with
types of knowledge may be tied to economic change. Research for small family farms
or cultural roles within the community and needs to take into consideration the
may not be known by other community close dependence on forests, fisheries,
members. For example, studies in East Africa pasturelands and diversified livelihood
have shown that women usually possess systems of these farms. Combining scientific
remarkable knowledge about the qualities and traditional knowledge at the variety
and uses of indigenous tree species and that and landscape levels offers great potential.
many of those insights are unknown to men Improving the linkages and cooperation
(Juma, 1987). between the formal research system and
With changing circumstances land farmers can ensure that farmers priorities
pressure, new market opportunities, are addressed, enhance farmers access to
land deterioration farmers indigenous and benefits from the work of researchers,
techniques may no longer be adequate. and allow researchers to learn from and
In situations where land is limited and the build on farmers knowledge and innovations
population continues to grow, traditional (FAO, 2012c). Producers organizations
ways of farming may no longer be tenable. can help facilitate these links. Researchers
While most farmers practise some form of and extension workers should seek and
land management, changing biophysical encourage the involvement of farmers
conditions create the need for new and their organizations in developing and
technologies and measures for which farmers adapting technologies to local farming
may lack the necessary knowledge base. conditions through interactive participation
Formal research can help to address this between professionals and farmers (Jiggins
challenge by developing resistant cultivars; and de Zeeuw, 1992; Reijntjes, Haverkort and
building knowledge about the life cycles of Waters-Bayer, 1992; Haverkort, Kamp and
pests, biological control methods, suitable Waters-Bayer, 1991)
crops for erosion control and processes Research is being conducted in new ways
in nitrogen fixation; and designing more to provide better support to innovation
complex physical soil and water conservation through collaboration (Thornton and Lipper,
measures. 2013). Many CGIAR centres have adopted
Modern agricultural technologies and new collaborative forms of germplasm
insights from research are crucial in providing development and diffusion involving
farmers with guidance on addressing different kinds of partners, such as the
ecological concerns. For instance, science has International Maize and Wheat Improvement
a central role in mitigating or adapting to Centers (CIMMYTs) MasAgro project, which
climate change. While plant breeders have is a partnership of more than 50 national
56 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
and international organizations dedicated plant breeding (PPB), which has been
to improving sustainable agriculture. Other incorporating farmers active participation
CGIAR centres, such as the International into plant breeding programmes since the
Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry 1980s. At least 80 participatory breeding
Areas (ICARDA), are using participatory programmes are documented worldwide,
approaches to crop improvement through involving various institutions and crops (see
variety selection in collaboration with FAO, 2009 for an overview). PPB allows
national agricultural research organizations farmers to select germplasm that is better
and NGOs. Recent partnerships with the suited to their environments, resulting
private sector are leading to the uptake and in varieties that are well-adapted to the
diffusion of improved technologies that challenging lands typically worked by poor
would not otherwise have been possible. farmers (Box 16) (Humphries et al., 2005).
In collaboration with national research PPB programmes may be formally led,
organizations, some CGIAR centres are with researchers obliged to complete
working directly with farmers organizations research that is reproducible, or farmer-led,
and NGOs to select the most useful varieties where farmers needs for improved varieties
and then bulking up supplies of quality seed drive the research programme, without
and distributing it to farmers; for example, any requirement for experiments to be
the International Crops Research Institute replicable (Humphries et al., 2005). Whether
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is making the programme is formally or farmer-led
small packets of seed commercially available depends on the nature of the participation
to farmers. of both researchers and farmers.
Participation can range from contractual,
Partnerships between researchers and where one party maintains decision-making
family farmers power and merely contracts the other for
Traditionally, the role of extension systems support, to consultative, collaborative or
was to link research to farmers through collegial, where both parties work together
technology transfer. However, farmers have and share in decision-making (Vernooy et al.,
not always received technology that suited 2009).
their particular environments and needs. Evaluation of the impacts of PPB has been
New models of extension aim to ensure positive, showing that: i) PPB produces crop
that there is two-way communication varieties that are more responsive to farmers
(see Chapter 5 for further discussion of needs, thus increasing their adoption; ii) it
new approaches in extension). Other does not appear to lower the cost-benefit
approaches create closer partnerships ratios of breeding programmes; and iii) it
between researchers and family farmers, accelerates the development of new varieties
such as Promoting Local Innovation and their introduction into farmers fields
(PROLINNOVA), which is an NGO-initiated (Ashby, 2009). PPB programmes may also
multi-stakeholderprogramme, and other have other benefits in rural communities,
international projects such as the Platform such as strengthening social capital through
for African-European Partnership on farmers associations and other networks,
Agricultural Research for Development. and providing educational opportunities for
Participatory approaches also offer farmers (Humphries et al., 2005).
important opportunities to ensure that Few impact assessments are broken
womens needs and constraints are down by gender: some studies highlight
incorporated into technology development positive impacts on women and the benefits
(Ragasa et al., 2014). of involving women in PPB programmes,
Most participatory approaches for while others cast doubt on the gender
agricultural research have focused on impact of PPB (Ragasa et al., 2014). Gender-
adapting technologies to local conditions sensitive targeting and programme design
(Farrington and Martin, 1988). Numerous are needed, to support and facilitate the
examples illustrate how involving farmers participation of women and to ease their
at different stages of adaptive research specific problems with mobility, transport,
can complement the work of scientists time burdens and social constraints (Ragasa
(FAO, 2005). One example is participatory et al., 2014)
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
57
BOX 16
Participatory plant breeding in Honduras
In Honduras, small farmers face high rates selecting genetic materials that met their
of rural poverty and inequality in land criteria for yield, disease resistance and
access. Wealthier individuals typically own commercial attributes. FIPAH agronomists
the flatter, larger landholdings, leaving served as facilitators and provided training
small farmers in remote areas to farm to farmers in their communities.
small plots on steep hillsides that are In 2004, farmers selected a variety for
prone to erosion and poor soil fertility release and called it Macuzalito, which
(Humphries et al., 2005; Classen et al., is the highest point in the municipality
2008). The concentration of infrastructure of the four communities participating
development in the north and centre of the in the project. Farmers have since asked
country leaves many of these smallholders breeders to look for materials to cross with
with few roads and markets and limited Macuzalito, indicating that they view PPB
communication infrastructure. These as a long-term commitment and process
factors, coupled with very traditional (Humphries et al., 2005). Researchers at
gender roles that discourage women Zamorano who were once sceptical of PPB
from participating in agriculture, have are now convinced that farmers are in the
restricted the development of social capital best position to choose varieties for their
(Classen et al., 2008). Typically, remote specific environmental and community
farmers have not been targeted by publicly conditions, and recognize that the skill
funded research or extension, so many of sets acquired by CIAL members present
them still use old techniques that worsen opportunities to conduct research in
environmental problems; at high elevations, areas that were previously inaccessible
however, farmers landraces outperform (Vernooyetal.,2009). The PPB programme
newer varieties (Humphries et al., 2005). has increased the participation of women
This combination of factors provides a and built social and human capital in
unique opportunity for PPB programmes. the communities; an assessment by
To improve the selection of varieties Classenetal.(2008) indicates that CIAL
available to bean farmers in Yorito, members are more likely to join other
Honduras, a PPB programme was associations and undertake continuing
implemented between 1999 and 2004. education.
Participants included elected farmer Overall, the project has been successful
research committees, known by their in improving the livelihoods of the most
Spanish acronym as CIALs; the Foundation marginal bean farmers on the Honduran
for Participatory Research with Honduran hillsides. However, it should be noted that
Farmers (FIPAH), a Honduran NGO that PPBs face several barriers. For example, a
provides agronomic support to CIALs; and similar project in the Lake Yojoa region
plant breeders from the Pan-American proved unsuccessful because the lake
Agricultural School of Zamorano is much closer to a major urban centre.
(Humphries et al., 2005). Farmers were People found it easier to move between
trained in experimental methods, and their farms and the city, making it difficult
parallel trials were run at Zamorano. Early to ensure the stable membership required
in the project, farmers were involved in for a long-term PPB project.
Communication and collaboration may not have the capacity to listen to and
between farmers and researchers involves accommodate the multiple and diverse voices
a number of challenges. Farmers may of family farmers. Scientists may find that
not know what is expected of them in a their academic careers are advanced more
research setting and may not be able to readily through scientific publications and
communicate clearly the tools, processes or interactions with other scientists than by
products they require. The research system working in participatory research activities.
58 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
Research institutions may prioritize include policy and institutional changes that
research avenues for which donor funding reward researchers for practical impacts in
is available. Researchers and farmers alike their research fields rather than for pure
may be unwilling to invest time, effort and academic achievements, or that link the
money in talking to each other unless they provision of research funding to teamwork
see a clear advantage (FAO, 2012c). with farmers (World Bank, 2012b).
Brokering or facilitation may therefore
be needed to ensure that farmers and
researchers cooperate. A recent example Key messages
is the Systmes de production biologique
diversifis (Syprobio Diversified Organic Public agricultural R&D is particularly
Production Systems) project in West effective in promoting sustainable
Africa, which required time and money agricultural productivity growth and
to overcome such challenges through a alleviating poverty. The benefits of
patient cross-disciplinary approach (FAO, public agricultural R&D are felt through
2012c). Other examples of participatory three main channels: higher farm
research programmes are documented incomes, increased rural employment,
in FAO (2012d). One strategy for linking and lower food prices for consumers.
farmers to researchers is to increase An extensive body of empirical evidence
the numbers of transfer specialists in confirms the high returns to public
research institutes, with some researchers investment in agricultural R&D.
from the institutes working more closely Private investment in agricultural R&D
with extensionists, producers groups is growing rapidly, primarily in high-
and lead farmers to link research to local income countries but also in some
demands (Box 17). lower-income countries. As private
Such facilitation mechanisms can help agricultural R&D focuses on products
to develop partnerships between research with a commercial market, public-sector
and family farmers, but incentives are investment remains indispensable to
nevertheless crucial. These incentives could ensure adequate research investments in
BOX 17
Promoting technology transfer specialists in the Dominican Republic and Mexico
Two recently approved agriculture innovation physical capacity, training, resources and
programmes in Mexico and the Dominican incentives for research and extension to
Republic, supported by the Inter-American promote innovation.The two projects
Development Bank (IDB), aim to strengthen provide new resources to train and/or
the ties between research and extension hire researchers as technology transfer
through Transferencista (technology transfer specialists, upgrade training centres, train
specialists and researchers). Similar in role extension agents, develop mechanisms
to the United States Land Grant research and tools to capture demand better, and
State Specialists, the Transferencistas are develop metrics that better recognize
research professionals with a primary the contributions oftechnology
responsibility for ensuring that research is transfer specialists in the innovation
relevant to both extension professionals and agenda (Falcon and Preissing, personal
farmers.The United States State Specialist communication, 2012). In Mexico, 32
model recognizes that different incentives, outreach centres are being upgraded
staff training, budgets and institutional and staffed with technology transfer
mechanisms are needed for research that outreach specialists, and 90 researchers
is useful to small farmers (Deller and are being trained in participatory
Preissing, 2008). research methods. In the Dominican
In Mexico and the Dominican Republic, Republic, three outreach centres will be
governments and IDB identified a lack of upgraded.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
59
areas that are of little or no commercial build on research results from larger
interest to the private sector, such as the countries or international institutes
orphan crops that smallholder farmers and focus their own efforts on adaptive
grow in marginal areas of developing research.
countries, or sustainable production There is potential for increasing South-
practices. South cooperation in agricultural
Countries must maintain, and in research between countries with larger
many cases increase, expenditure on public-sector research institutes and
agricultural R&D to ensure continued smaller national agricultural research
productivity growth and environmental institutes in countries facing similar agro-
sustainability, but the stability of public ecological challenges.
funding is also important for agricultural Farmer-led innovation and formal
R&D to be effective. Innovative funding research are complementary; combining
mechanisms can contribute, but stable traditional knowledge with formal
institutional funding is also needed to research can yield truly innovative
ensure core long-term research capacity. approaches to support sustainable
Agricultural R&D can be strengthened productivity growth among family
through partnerships between national farms. Farmers participation in formal
and international research agencies, R&D projects helps ensure that the
between the private and public sectors, resulting technologies fit their real
and among sectoral research institutes. needs and builds on their experiences,
Basic scientific research is needed but the professional incentives currently
to enhance the overall long-term facing research organizations may not
potential for sustainable production foster such collaboration. Producers
but, because the results of such organizations and other forms of
research are international public goods, collective action can facilitate better
international public research institutes communication and collaboration
may be better placed to carry it out. between farmers and researchers.
More adaptive research is needed to Governments have a responsibility to
exploit this potential fully in the specific help produce research that is relevant to
agro-ecological conditions in different the special needs of small family farms
countries. Countries with limited and to ensure proper governance of
financial resources may thus choose to partnerships and collaborative efforts.
60 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
5. Agricultural extension
andadvisory services for
familyfarms37
Agricultural extension and advisory services the advisory services provided by the private
are central to achieving sustainable sector and civil society are technically sound
productivity growth among family farms. By and socially and economically appropriate.
facilitating farmers access to information, This chapter discusses trends and challenges
such services can help reduce the gap in agricultural extension and advisory services
between potential and actual yields and and their implications for small family farms.
improve farmers management skills
(Anderson and Feder, 2007). They can help
agriculture become an engine of pro-poor Trends and patterns in extension
growth and equip small family farms to meet
new challenges, including access to markets, Studies have shown that investments in
adoption of environmentally sustainable extension in common with investments in
production methods, and responses to agricultural research and development have
climate change (Birner et al., 2009). However, delivered high rates of return. In a review of
far too many family farms do not have extension programmes, Evenson (2001) found
regular access to extension services. that although rates of return to extension
Although recent decades have seen the varied widely, they exceeded 20percent
emergence of more pluralistic agricultural in three-quarters of the 81 extension
extension and advisory service systems, with programmes considered. In a survey of
private firms, producers associations and civil quantitative studies of rates of return to
society playing more active roles alongside research, development and extension, Alston
traditional public-sector providers (Sulaiman et al. (2000) also found high, but variable,
and Hall, 2002), there is still an important returns to agricultural extension.
role for government. In common with Nevertheless, starting in the 1990s in the
agricultural research, agricultural advisory wake of structural adjustment policies and
services generate benefits for society that disillusionment with previous training and
are greater than the value captured by visit (T&V) extension many governments
individual farmers and commercial service gradually withdrew from funding the sector
providers, such as increased productivity, (Benson and Jafry, 2013). The T&V system
improved sustainability, lower food prices was developed in the early 1970s and was
and poverty reduction. These public goods promoted by the World Bank in more
call for the involvement of the public sector, than 50 countries until 1998. It consisted
for example in providing advisory services of regular on-farm visits by field agents,
to small farms and services to support who transferred technology from research
sustainable production practices. The public institutes to contact farmers or farmers
sector also has a responsibility to ensure that groups acting as focal points for reaching the
larger farming community. The T&V system
was initially perceived as successful in a
37
Originally, extension was largely understood as the
transfer of research-based knowledge, focusing on number of countries, but it did not produce
increasing production. Today, the understanding of results at the required scale, and had high
extension is wider and includes broader dimensions such as recurrent costs (Anderson and Feder, 2007).
facilitation, learning and assistance to farmers groups. The
Recently, extension is once again the
term advisory services is often used instead of extension
(Davis, 2008). In line with much of the literature, this focus of attention (Anderson, 2008; Davis,
report uses the two terms interchangeably. 2008). After years of relative neglect,
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
61
TABLE 7
Government and donor spending on agricultural extension and technology transfer,
selected African countries
Country Nominal Real
(millions of LCU) (millions of constant 2006 LCU)
*Provisional data.
** Data refer to 2011
.. = data not available.
Notes: Numbers refer to levels of annual average spending on agricultural extension and technology transfer by donors
and governments in millions of local currency units (LCU). The consumer price index (World Bank, 2013) is used to adjust
nominal LCU to constant 2006 LCU.
Source: Monitoring and Analysing Food and Agricultural Policies (MAFAP) programme (FAO, 2014c).
there is now renewed recognition of the that allows users to examine spending on
importance of disseminating and sharing agricultural extension. So far, MAFAP provides
agricultural knowledge among farmers. estimates for recent years for eight African
Todays agricultural extension systems have countries: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana,
been transformed from government-driven Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Uganda and the
technology transfer mechanisms to broader United Republic of Tanzania. The estimates
and more pluralistic systems of advisory show that in most, but not all, of these
services offering broader ranges of advice countries the amount spent by governments
and involving different actors in providing it. on extension has increased in both nominal
However, there are currently few and real terms since 2006/07. The increase
comprehensive data on the trends and may partly reflect the commitment made
patterns of agricultural extension at by governments to raising spending on
the international level, regarding both agriculture through the Maputo Declaration
expenditure and outreach to farmers. While (Table 7).
limited data exist on public extension for
some countries, achieving an overview of Outreach
activities by the many non-public actors Despite their importance in providing
working in extension is highly problematic farmers with new information on new
(Box 18). methods and technologies, public
agricultural extension and advisory services
Government spending may reach fewer farmers than would be
In many countries it is impossible to assess expected. The limited data available from
the scale and cost of services, even for public agricultural censuses in some low- and
extension. The most recent global estimate of middle-income countries suggest that only
public expenditures on extension dates back a small share of farms may interact with
to 1988 and put total spending at US$5billion government extension agents.38 In a sample
(Swanson, Farner and Bahal, 1988). Although of ten countries with available evidence,
estimates exist for some individual countries, the share did not exceed 25percent in any
the Monitoring African Food and Agricultural
Policies (MAFAP) programme led by FAO 38
For most countries, data from agricultural censuses and
in collaboration with OECD (FAO, 2014c) household surveys relate only to interaction with public
provides the only multi-country database extension agents.
62 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 18
Measuring expenditure on extension and advisory services
country, and was less than 10percent in of farmers had obtained some kind of
three countries (Figure 20). information on modern technology in the
There are also indications that smaller previous year. For large farms, the share was
farms are less likely to engage with 54percent, but it dropped to 38percent
agricultural extension agents than are larger for small farms. Even then, the most
ones. In a sample of household survey data common sources of information were other
from nine countries, the share of farms progressive farmers and input dealers, and
obtaining extension information generally only 6percent of farmers reported receiving
increases with farm size (Figure 21), and the information from government extension
smallest farms are always the least likely to workers: 12percent of large farms, and
have access to such information. This likely 5percent of small ones.
reflects the poverty of many small farms While men have limited access to extension
and the cost of reaching them, but may be services, women farmers have even less
because farm income is only a small share (FAO, 2011b). There are differences between
of total household income for many small men and women farmers in the numbers
farmers (see the subsection on Multiple of contacts with extension agents, the
income sources in Chapter 2). percentages of farmers visited by extension
From India, Adhiguru, Birthal and Ganesh agents, and access to community meetings or
Kumar (2009) report that only 40percent meetings held by extension agents (Meinzen-
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
63
FIGURE 20
Shares of farms accessing information through agricultural extension,
selected countries most recent year
Bangladesh (1)
Brazil (2)
India (3)
Lao People's
Democratic Republic (4)
Malawi (5)
Nepal* (6)
Nicaragua (7)
Paraguay (8)
Uganda (9)
United Republic
of Tanzania* (10)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage
Note: *For Nepal and the United Republic of Tanzania, the shares include only farm households; non-household farm
enterprises are excluded. Numbers in parentheses identify the source.
Sources: (1) IFPRI, 2013b; (2) Government of Brazil, 2009; (3) Adhiguru, Birthal and Ganesh Kumar, 2009; (4) Government
of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 2012; (5) Government of Malawi, 2010; (6) FAO, 2014a; (7) Government of Nicaragua,
2012; (8) Government of Paraguay, 2009; (9) Government of Uganda, 2011; (10) FAO, 2014a.
Dick et al., 2011). Extension agents often women representatives in local councils or
engage men farmers more than women, committees, creating sectoral gender focal
often partly because social norms restrict points, and conducting gender-sensitive
womens contacts with men extension agents. training for staff are other options (Meinzen-
Failure to reach women at home can seriously Dick et al., 2011).
limit their access to extension services. Time
constraints and lower levels of education also
prevent women from participating in certain Extension and advisory services to
types of extension activities unless these are meet farmers needs
specifically oriented to women. Reduced
delivery of extension services to women Changing paradigms for services
largely reflects the lack of appropriate policies Increasingly, agricultural advisory bodies are
such as gender-sensitive staffing policies in called on to offer a much broader range of
extension services (Ragasa et al., 2014). services than before. Globalization, economic
Meinzen-Dick et al. (2011) reviewed a growth and urbanization have resulted in
number of strategies that have succeeded the development of more formal market
in improving womens access to extension. outlets, where farmers are increasingly part of
These strategies include strengthening value chains that extend from input suppliers
self-help groups and womens associations, to consumers. Consumers are demanding
affirmative action in associations and more information on the quality and safety
farmers organizations, and promoting of foods, and private-sector standards for
awareness of womens leadership and food quality and safety are becoming more
advocacy abilities. Other successful methods stringent. This places additional demands
aim to recruit and train women extension on producers. Environmental threats and
agents. Intervening in public administration constraints also require farmers to adapt their
and the political sphere by reserving seats for farming systems to sustain both productivity
64 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
FIGURE 21
Shares of farms accessing information through agricultural extension, by farm size
00.5 02
0.51.5
24
1.52.5
>2.5 >4
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15
Percentage Percentage
<.01 <0.25
0.10.2
0.250.53
0.20.5
0.51.0 0.541
1.02.0
>2.0 117
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percentage Percentage
<0.5 <1
0.51 15
12.5 510
2.55 1020
2050
510
50100
1020
100200
2050
200500
50100
5001 000
100200 1 0005 000
200500 5 00010 000
>500 >10 000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage Percentage
<0.51
0.510.96
0.961.8
1.821
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage
Notes: *For Nepal and the United Republic of Tanzania, the shares includes only farm households; non-household farm
enterprises are excluded.
Sources: IFPRI, 2013b; Adhiguru, Birthal and Ganesh Kumar, 2009; Government of Malawi, 2010; FAO, 2014a; Government
of Nicaragua, 2012; Government of Paraguay, 2009; FAO, 2014a.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
65
and income over the long term. Diversification services by different providers, bottom-up
of sources of farm household income is planning, and autonomous extension system.
another factor that broadens the demand Participatory approaches can help make
for advisory services to cover more activities extension services more demand-driven
and involve different members of the farm and responsive to the needs of farmers.
household men, women and youth in They can also help ensure that womens
different ways. needs and specific constraints are taken
As a result, advice now covers such issues as: into consideration, and thus contribute to
selecting the most appropriate mix of removing constraints on womens productivity
crop and livestock production; (FAO, 2011b). However, if participatory
increasing market access; approaches are to succeed in this area, they
adding value to products and improving must pay explicit attention to gender issues
on-farm processing activities; (Ragasa et al., 2014). A good example of
using the most efficient production participatory approaches are Farmer Field
management practices; Schools (FFS), which are community-based
increasing the income and improving the initiatives focusing on observation and
welfare of farm households; experimentation and are now functioning in
improving management of natural several countries around the world (Box 19).
resources; Competitive funding systems empower
responding to climate change and other farmers to experiment and discover which
environmental threats; practices best suit them. Farmer innovation
coping with risk; fund schemes, which may be operated by
supporting producers organizations and governments, NGOs or other actors, provide
collaborative networks. individual farmers, farmers groups and
Advisory service must take into account other local stakeholders with small grants or
the diversity of farmers needs, which vary loans for innovative and business initiatives
depending on their socio-economic conditions selected by the recipients themselves. The
and the size of their household. The kind schemes cover not only new technologies
of advice that farmers require will also vary (on- and off-farm) and business models,
according to the quality and location of the but also institutional aspects such as the
resources under their control, their access to development of farmers organizations
other physical and economic resources (e.g. (PROLINNOVA, 2012). In an extensive review
credit, inputs, transportation and markets) of studies of innovation grants, Ton et al.
and their technical and management skills. (2013) found that the relatively few studies
that assessed the impacts of innovation
Demand-responsive and participatory grants generally found positive impacts.
services
Efforts to reach small, resource-poor and
marginalized farmers more effectively have Delivery of advisory services by
included decentralization, participatory different actors
approaches and the introduction of
competitive funding systems. It is now widely recognized that traditional
Decentralization can be an important public agricultural extension cannot meet
way of making government-provided all the varying needs of different and
services more responsive to needs, but it diverse farmers and rural communities.
can be expensive (Birner and Anderson, In many countries, reforms of public-
2007). A well-documented example of sector extension services have led to the
decentralization of public agricultural emergence of mixed advisory systems in
extension is the establishment of Indias which services are provided by a broader
Agricultural Technology Management range of actors, including the private sector
Agency (ATMA), which is a multi-stakeholder and civil society (Sulaiman and Hall, 2002).
forum that encourages collaboration among Some governments are continuing to
public-sector institutions, the private sector finance extension while contracting private
and NGOs. Features of ATMA include its firms, NGOs and farmers organizations
use of farmers interest groups, delivery of to provide services (Rivera and Zijp, 2002).
66 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 19
Farmer Field Schools
67
government has set up a system of agro- groups of farmers, but it may involve
vets, which are charged with supplying conflicts of interest, such as when private
inputs and materials to support crop and service suppliers promote specific products
livestock production, with the government rather than providing more neutral
issuing licences and providing training. Since information, without the possibility for
2003, the Swiss Agency for Development farmers and their organizations to check
and Cooperation has operated a similar and verify information. Private extension
programme to promote farm enterprise providers may also have no reason to be
development in northwest Bangladesh concerned about the possible negative
(Kahan, 2011). environmental impacts of the practices
Advisory services may also be provided by they recommend, such as through excessive
entrepreneurs selling inputs and equipment pesticide application or fertilizer use.
to farmers or retailers, or by the buyers of The private sector has a role, but in low-
farmers produce. In these cases, extension income countries with generally low
is often not a stand-alone activity but is levels of education among farmers and
provided to complement more tangible without effective regulations including
commercial services. Contract farming is environmental regulations private-sector
often seen as a potentially effective way delivery may present pitfalls that must be
of delivering expertise to farmers (Box 20). recognized. A further issue may be the
Buyers generally enter into contracts with private sectors lack of interest in providing
groups or individual farmers. The contracts services to small family farms and farms
specify the amount, quality, delivery schedule in remote and marginal areas, which only
and price to be paid for produce. Farmers public-sector engagement can serve.
typically receive inputs on credit, and
extension services are usually provided by the Non-governmental organizations
buyer to ensure that farmers meet quality In many parts of the world, non-profit or
standards and apply inputs appropriately non-governmental organizations are active
(Tschirley, Minde and Boughton, 2009). providers of advisory services, often when
Private-sector delivery of extension there is not enough commercial appeal
services can have both advantages and to attract the private sector (Box 21). In
disadvantages. It can facilitate the delivery rural areas that are complex or risk-prone,
of a broader array of services to different NGOs are frequently the main providers of
BOX 20
Contract farming and advisory service support in Sri Lanka
In 1988, Hayleys Group created Sunfrost farmers first growing season, an extension
Limited to produce semi-processed pickles agent visits them about twice a week
and gherkins for export. Originally, the to ensure that they are meeting quality
company grew the produce on a large standards; visits become less frequent in
commercial farm, but found that labour subsequent seasons. These farm visits,
costs were prohibitive and decided to and training classes, are provided free to
enter into contract farming arrangements participating farmers. This arrangement
with small-scale farmers. To diversify has been extremely successful: by 2007,
production and add value through the HJS Condiments was working with 8000
processing of pickles, Hayleys Group small farmers and had about another
formed HJS Condiments in 1993. The 8000 full-time employees working in
company has a guaranteed buy-back producing and processing. The company
system for produce in which farmers are accounts for 22percent of Sri Lankas fruit
given inputs on credit and a fixed price at and vegetable exports.
which all of their produce is purchased.
HJS employs a fully trained extension
worker for every 100 farmers. During the Source: Swanson and Rajalahti, 2010.
68 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
extension services (Davis and Place, 2003; and their composition may also differ. Typical
Benson and Jafry, 2013) and may provide groups and organizations include village-
extension advice directly or facilitate the level, self-help groups; primary cooperatives;
strengthening of value chains by brokering producers associations and their federations
relationships among the different actors at the regional and national levels;
(Kahan, 2007). NGOs have also developed processing and export organizations; and
methodologies for research and extension national industry bodies.
that have subsequently been adopted by the Farmer-to-farmer extension relies on
public sector (Amanor and Farrington, 1991). group-based learning, cross-visits, farmer-
NGOs have both strengths and weaknesses trainers and farmer-extension agents
in providing extension services to farmers (World Bank, 2007a). The model originated
(Davis et al., 2003). They tend to be in areas where government services were
participatory, demand-driven and client- weak or non-existent. It involves self-
centred in their approach; they have limited learning and group-level cooperation, but
bureaucracy, and services are often well it sometimes relies on external facilitation.
managed, efficient and cost-effective. On Examples include the volunteer farmer-
the other hand, they tend to depend on trainer approach, where farmers trained
donors for funding, which can make longer- by extension staff train other farmers, host
term sustainability a problem; programmes demonstration plots and share information
are often of short duration and geographical on improved agricultural practices with their
coverage is limited. communities (Kiptot and Franzel, 2014)
(Box21).
Farmers groups
Farmers organizations also play a significant Mixed systems
role in rural advisory services. They can New forms of arrangement promote
supply services to their members and draw collaboration among the public and private
on services provided from outside (Umali and sectors and civil society. Even where public
Schwartz, 1994). Farmers groups can be of financing of extension is warranted, non-
various sizes and operate at different scales, State service providers are often more
BOX 21
Volunteer farmer-trainers in the East Africa Dairy Development project
69
efficient and flexible (Anderson, 2008). The consensus building might work better than
public sector contracts agricultural extension sweeping reforms, which risk ignoring local
in many ways, which may involve different expertise and inviting passive resistance
types of public-sector agencies, local or (Rwamigisa et al., 2013).
international NGOs, universities, extension
consulting firms or rural producers Information and communication
organizations. These kinds of outsourcing technology
model can be found in Mali, Mozambique, Direct face-to-face extension services
Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania are increasingly being complemented
and other countries (Heemskerk, Nederlof and sometimes replaced by modern
and Wennink, 2008). communications technology such as mobile
Publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) can phones, the Internet and more conventional
support research (as seen in Chapter 4) as mass media radio, video and television
well as technology transfer and advisory (Asenso-Okyere and Mekonnen, 2012). ICT
services. Although the PPP model is can play an important role in informing
considered very promising, there is still farmers and rural entrepreneurs on such
relatively little evidence of its effectiveness, issues as weather conditions (locally and in
partly because of its novelty. PPPs and other other parts of the world), input availability,
forms of multistakeholder collaboration dealers, financial services, market prices
also face challenges, such as in providing and buyers. Mobile phones are of particular
incentives for initiating a partnership. relevance, and their use has been expanding
Cultural differences and communication rapidly worldwide. Cell phones have great
difficulties among partners and stakeholders potential for the widespread dissemination
may take a long time to overcome of production, marketing and management
(Spielman, Hartwich and von Grebmer, information, and for mobile banking,
2007). It is also important to have a strong insurance, credit or subsidy schemes (Box 22).
governance framework and institutional In a review of studies conducted on the
support mechanisms to avoid restricting the use of ICT for agricultural development
range of farmers who benefit to those who in Africa and Asia, Asenso-Okyere and
can afford to pay service fees. Mekonnen (2012) found that some studies
The National Agricultural Advisory showed little to no impact, while others
Services (NAADS) in Uganda has generated found significant improvements in market
interesting lessons regarding publicprivate access, on-farm income, productivity,
extension services. NAADS aimed to increase crop diversification and environmental
agricultural production for markets by stewardship.
empowering farmers to demand and control Various barriers may constrain farmers
agricultural advisory services. Under the access to ICT (Nagel, 2010; Rodrigues and
programme, public extension advisers were Rodrguez, 2013): illiterate and older farmers
phased out and rehired by private firms and are usually less likely to use computers and
participating NGOs, or acted as independent smartphones; the prices of broadband or
consultants paid by farmers. However, an mobile services are relatively high; and
analysis by IFPRI found that the evidence of connectivity may not be available or its
whether the NAADS program adequately quality may be poor. Dissemination may also
induced participants to establish new be limited if the content and format of the
enterprises or to adopt technologies and information do not match farmers needs
improved practices more frequently than (Burrell and Oreglia, 2013). In a study of the
their non-participating counterparts, seems benefits of providing SMS-based market
patchy, with tenuous links to increased and weather information to farmers in
productivity and commercialization of India, Fafchamps and Minten (2012) found
agriculture (Benin et al., 2011). A later no significant effect on prices received
study attributed the limited success of by farmers, crop value-added, crop losses
NAADS partly to its over-radical approach resulting from rainstorms, or the likelihood
and concluded that for complex, large-scale of changing crop varieties and cultivation
institutional reform programmes, gradual practices.
70 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 22
Using ICT to improve farmers access to extension services in Uganda
In 2009, the Grameen Foundation began a The value of CKWs is that they are
partnership with Google and MTN Uganda respected community members who
to develop an SMS application called are farmers themselves and are thus are
Farmers Friend, which compiles agricultural able to put the information provided
information and weather forecasts into through ICT services into context for
a searchable database. Farmers can text other individuals. The farmers in their
a question to the database and receive a communities trust the CKWs, value the
reply via SMS (Yorke, 2009). To increase information they receive and are therefore
the impact of the service, the Grameen more likely to apply that knowledge on
Foundation developed the Community their farms. The CKWs are also able to
Knowledge Worker (CKW) programme provide feedback from farmers in a two-
to engage local farmers in delivering way flow of information that helps the
information and extension services to programme perform better.
neighbouring smallholders. A review conducted in 2012 showed
Each CKW receives a loan to obtain that farmers with access to a CKW
a business in a box that includes a received prices that were 22percent
smartphone and a solar charger. The higher than those of farmers without
phones are preloaded with an Android access (Grameen Foundation, 2013b),
application called CKW search, which is a and their knowledge levels rose by about
database that includes advice on issues such 17percent (Van Campenhout, 2012).
as crop pests, animal diseases, where to Once human contacts were incorporated
buy agricultural inputs, weather forecasts into the provision of agricultural advice
and marketing information (Grameen through ICT services, behaviour changed
Foundation, 2013a). CKWs use the and positive outcomes were achieved.
application to answer farmers questions The CKW programme provides a low-cost,
and encourage the use of agricultural scalable model for providing ICT-enabled
best practices. They also conduct surveys extension services to poor, remote
on their phones to collect important data smallholders. As of 2013, the programme
about smallholders and their farms. CKWs included more than 1100 CKWs serving
are paid to conduct the surveys, and they more than 176000 farmers. It has
earn additional income from letting other been replicated in Colombia (Grameen
people use the solar charger. Foundation, 2013a).
71
accommodate local needs (Raabe, 2008). be unwilling to pay the full costs, even when
These include gender dimensions and the able to do so.
needs of women farmers (Anderson, 2008). Adequate, clearly targeted and stable
Governments must recognize the public funding is necessary to ensure advisory
importance of advisory services in which services for small family farms and to address
different actors play different roles and environmental and sustainability concerns.
provide different services to different groups However, actual service delivery may be
of farmers. They must support and facilitate private. The best approach depends on
private-sector advisory services with private the type of service and local circumstances.
goods characteristics. The public sector is Forging effective partnerships between
responsible for creating the proper conditions the public and private sectors is important,
for private investment, such as the presence of but new partnership arrangements should
infrastructure, education and training, as well not be viewed as a panacea or a way for
as the right incentives and good governance. the public sector to retreat from extension.
Another important role for government Public-sector involvement is important in
is coordinating and regulating services ensuring that public funds are used effectively
in a pluralistic environment, including and transparently and in monitoring and
promoting coherence among services for supervising private-sector performance.
the agriculture, pastoral, forest and fisheries While recognizing the importance of
sectors. Governments have a responsibility public funding, governments inevitably have
for ensuring that advisory services provided to take into account the trade-offs between
by the private sector and civil society are the number and types of farmers reached
technically, socially and economically and the associated costs. Providing extension
appropriate. Governments should provide services to a large number of small farmers
appropriate policy formulation, analysis, may be very expensive without some degree
quality control and regulatory functions, of targeting of beneficiaries. When publicly
especially as the private sector usually has funded extension services are motivated by
few incentives to look after the public good social and equity concerns, governments
(Kidd et al., 2000). It is particularly important must also consider whether delivering
to consider the possible environmental services to a large number and wide variety
impacts of practices recommended and of farmers is more cost-effective in poverty
promoted by private extension service alleviation than are possible alternatives.
providers. However, it should not be forgotten
Governments also have a direct that political economy considerations and
responsibility to provide extension and pressure from interest groups have often
advisory services where the private tended to skew public expenditure and
sector is unlikely do so. Core areas for policies to benefit urban rather than rural
government involvement are sustainability dwellers and a small number of larger-scale
and environmental concerns, the spread farmers rather than a multitude of smaller
of crop and livestock diseases, and food farmers (see FAO, 2012b for a discussion).
safety issues (Benson and Jafry, 2013). Governments bear a responsibility for
Public concerns regarding food security and ensuring that rural areas and smaller farms
poverty eradication also call for strong public are not forgotten. Obviously, the choices
engagement in ensuring extension services. made will depend on specific national
A critical concern for governments is to and local circumstances, as well as on the
ensure that services are available for small governments agricultural and overall
family farmers, especially in remote or development strategies.
marginal areas. Private extension providers
are more likely to serve large commercial Gathering evidence, measuring impact
farms than small and sometimes remote and sharing experiences
farmers, who may be costly to reach and There is no universally applicable type of
who may not be able to pay for services. agricultural advisory service. Birner (2009)
Farmers may frequently not be aware of the encourages interested parties (the public,
benefits of extension and advice, and thus private and civil society sectors) to focus
72 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 23
Promoting innovation and competitiveness in agriculture in Peru
73
Key messages coordinated and regulated to foster
collaboration between the public sector
Agricultural extension and advisory and different private actors. The public
services are essential for closing the sector also has a responsibility to ensure
gap between actual and potential that the advisory services provided
productivity and ensuring widespread by the private sector and civil society
adoption of more sustainable are technically sound and socially and
agricultural practices that preserve economically appropriate.
natural resources and provide crucial In spite of the growth of private advisory
environmental services. Empirical services, there is still a clear role for
evidence suggests that there are high governments in the actual provision
returns to public expenditure on of extension services. Many types of
agricultural extension. Given the large advisory services can generate important
yield gaps in many low- and middle- public goods such as lower food prices,
income countries, governments may increased sustainability and poverty
consider increasing the priority they reduction that call for government
give to this aspect of their national intervention. Governments have a special
innovation systems. responsibility towards small family farms,
Agricultural extension and advisory whose needs are unlikely to be met by
services can provide family farmers the private sector. Governments also
with information that allows them need to ensure provision of advisory
to make better and more informed services related to environmental
choices about product mix, appropriate sustainability and other public goods.
technologies and practices, and farm Producers organizations, cooperatives
management. Too many farmers lack and other community-based
access to information from agricultural organizations can play a central role in
extension and advisory services. Smaller providing services to smallholders and
farmers are less likely than larger ones to helping them voice their requirements.
have such access, and women engaged Strengthening the capacity of family
in agriculture have even less access than farming organizations to advocate for
men. and provide services can help ensure
Different kinds of extension and advisory more transparent and demand-driven
services, delivered by various service extension and advisory services.
providers, are more likely to meet the There is need for more evidence on
diverse needs of different farmers: which advisory service models work
there is no standard fit. However, best and for improved national and
as in agricultural R&D, both public international information in this regard.
and private sources of extension and Efforts to gather and share information
advisory services have important but about effective extension models should
different roles to play. Public and private be promoted at both the national and
roles must be clearly defined and well international levels.
74 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
Previous chapters have discussed the roles farms involved in identifying and/or
of research and of extension and rural developing, adapting and scaling up
advisory services in supporting innovation innovations;
on family farms. A broader challenge lies creating a policy environment conducive
in strengthening the innovation system for to these efforts, and forging links,
the benefit of family farmers, to improve communication channels and networks
their productivity, the sustainability of to enable individuals and organizations
their production, and their livelihoods. This to obtain and exchange new ideas and
chapter examines how to develop innovation expertise for innovation.
capacity for family farms at different These areas conform to the three levels of
levels: individual, collective and through an a capacity development strategy defined by
enabling environment. the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and FAO (OECD, 2006; FAO, 2010b).
The capacity development needs and the
Developing innovation capacity other interventions required will differ from
country to country, depending on countries
Strengthening the capacity for innovation specific circumstances. It is important that
means investing in learning and developing capacity development initiatives meet the
the skills of multiple actors in the agricultural needs of the recipient country (rather than of
innovation system. It also requires providing the donors) and of main actors in the national
the right incentives to encourage people to innovation system, especially family farms
put these skills into use and to develop the (Box 24).
right attitudes and practices. The capacity to
innovate can be considered as including a Focusing on youth
combination of: (i) scientific, entrepreneurial, More attention must be given to young
managerial and other skills, knowledge people, who can be central to accelerating
and resources; (ii) partnerships, alliances innovation in family farming. Youth may have
and networks linking different sources of greater awareness of new technologies, more
knowledge and different areas of social and recent education and curiosity, giving them an
economic activity; (iii) routines, organizational important role in helping their families link
culture and traditional practices that to broader innovation systems. Youngsters
encourage the propensity to innovate; (iv) who have been employed elsewhere in the
an ability for continuously learning and agrifood system may have experienced new
using knowledge effectively; and (v) clusters ideas and technologies that they can try out
of supportive policies and other incentives, with their families. Young people also often
governance structures and a conducive policy have an important role in ensuring that new
process (Hall and Dijkman, 2009). information channels are used effectively.
The capacity for innovation can be The extent to which young people perceive
developed in three main areas (Figure 22): farming as a profession with room for
upgrading the skills, expertise, innovation frequently determines whether
competencies and confidence of they remain in the sector. If they see farming
individuals and organizations by building as dynamic and potentially profitable, they
their human capital; are more likely to take over their family farms.
improving processes within Young people may have skills and
organizations, businesses and family motivation for innovating, but very often
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
75
FIGURE 22
Capacity development at different levels
The organizational
dimension refers to all public, private
and civil society organizations
The individual
dimension relates to all
individuals in organizations
and communities
BOX 24
Assessing capacity development needs: the Tropical Agricultural Platform
77
facilitating: (i)enhanced productivity of infrequently offering evidence of impact.
inputs, including labour; (ii) reduced costs Some of the criticism is due to the not so
of acquiring and using information about apparent connection between training, skills
technology that can increase productivity; development and impact (FAO, 2008b).
and (iii) entrepreneurship and responses Studies on the content of training suggest
to changing market conditions and that failure often results from weak design
technological developments (Schultz, 1964). and organization of curricula (Kahan, 2007).
Special attention must be given to women, Many training courses for advisory service
as gender differences in education at all practitioners are too general (relying on
levels are pervasive and well documented. standardized material), theoretical and
Although educational gender gaps have supply-driven, and the quality of trainers
tended to narrow, most significantly in Latin and training delivery is often poor. Training
America, large gaps remain in South Asia courses also tend to be treated as single
and sub-Saharan Africa. Affirmative action to events, with inadequate follow-up. If
increase school attendance by girls can play agricultural production on small family farms
a role in empowering the next generation is to become more market-oriented, much
of women while creating a critical mass of of the content of education and extension
educated farmers and a pool of potential should be refocused to cover new technical
women actors in the innovation system areas such as farm management, agribusiness
(Ragasa et al., 2014). The incidence of child development, value addition and marketing
labour in agriculture can limit childrens (Kahan, 2007; Rivera, 2011). Evidence also
access to basic education, and thus their suggests that training should be largely
ability to build the human capital needed to experience-based, practical and problem-
act as future innovators. oriented (Kilpatrick, 2005; Kahan, 2007), and
In addition to basic education, agricultural should simulate the challenges that farmers
universities, vocational and technical colleges face in the more competitive agricultural
and farmer training centres also play a role environment.
in creating the human capital needed to Training in innovation brokerage is an
modernize the sector. Agricultural education important part of skills development for
and training raises agricultural productivity advisory service practitioners, enabling
by developing producers capacities and them to facilitate and promote innovation
generating human capital for research that benefits family farms. Extension
and advisory services. The development of agents have often been trained to
agricultural education and training has been consider themselves as experts and are
an integral part of the strategies of countries unaccustomed to facilitating the learning
that have prioritized agricultural growth, and innovation processes of others. New
such as Brazil, India and Malaysia (World skills in communication, dialogue and conflict
Bank, 2007a). management need to be developed within
Despite the unquestioned importance public extension organizations and among
of developing human resources, the private, NGO and farmer-led advisory service
agricultural education sector has not providers (Leeuwis and Van den Ban, 2004).
generally benefited from adequate Investment is needed in developing
investment. In many developing countries, new tertiary-level curricula that foster
agricultural training at high schools and capacity to deal with new problems and
universities has been caught in a vicious challenges while ensuring that students gain
circle of low investment leading to declines specialized skills to address the productivity
in the quality of education, which in turn constraints of family farmers. In addition
send enrolment rates down (Beintema to hard skills in cutting-edge sectors
et al., 2012). According to a FAO report, such as biotechnology, food safety, agro-
training programmes are not often biodiversity, agribusiness and information
appreciated by public-sector agencies systems, there is also need for soft skills
and donors and, although a demand may such as communication and facilitation,
exist, clients are reluctant to pay for such which are essential in multidisciplinary and
training. Training tends to be perceived multistakeholder work settings (FARA, 2005;
as a black hole consuming resources and Posthumus, Martin and Chancellor, 2012).
78 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
To improve the relevance and effectiveness of public and private support to agricultural
of education, it is also important to education; and limited resources and
bring education institutes into closer, experience to cope with new areas of training
more productive relationships with other in agriculture: environment and natural
actors in the agriculture sector and the resources management, biotechnology,
wider economy (World Bank, 2007b). farming systems management and
With stronger linkages among education agribusiness. Building a productive and
institutes, national extension systems and financially sustainable education system
other stakeholders, the education and requires sustained political support for
research agendas can be tailored to the investments in agricultural education
needs of different user communities (Davis, and training to develop a network of
Ekboir and Spielman, 2008). Focusing on core institutions (Eicher, 2006). Long-term
Africa, Spielman and Birner (2008) call commitment is necessary to build up the
for reforms in agricultural education and required human capital within the innovation
training to strengthen the innovative system, while recognizing that the system
capabilities of agricultural organizations and needs to be dynamic to match the supply of
professionals. According to the authors, it is education and training with demand (World
particularly important to align the mandates Bank, 2007b).
of agricultural education and training
organizations with national development
goals by designing education programmes Developing organizational capacity
that are strategically matched with the
different needs of society and linked to The ability of small family farmers to arrange
institutions and individuals beyond the collective action through producers and
formal agricultural education system. These other community-based organizations is
reforms should also include development of crucial to their capacity to innovate. It allows
incentives for forging stronger links among them to obtain access to input and output
the agricultural education and training markets, to participate in value chains, and
system, other knowledge sources, the private to engage effectively with other actors in the
sector and farmers (Spielman and Birner, innovation system, such as research institutes
2008; Davis, Ekboir and Spielman, 2008). and private and public advisory services.
The capacities of people at lower academic Without the capacity to organize themselves,
levels, such as graduates from technical family farmers have little influence over
colleges and agricultural schools, are also the social, economic and political processes
valuable in making technical skills available affecting them.
to the farming community. The importance of Farmers organizations can facilitate access
agricultural education at these different levels to knowledge sources, inputs and markets.
has often been underestimated, and there However, their contribution to agricultural
is a persistent shortage of skilled technicians innovation varies, depending on their mission,
in knowledge-based commercial agriculture, background, assets and networks. Farmers
with its emphasis on value addition and organizations typically contribute to so-called
marketing (World Bank, 2010b). support functions within the agricultural
The low level of training of a large innovation system, such as input supply,
proportion of extension workers is a particular credit and savings schemes, and marketing
issue for many developing countries. However, of produce. Contributions to research and
as the number of middle- and college-level extension are less common, but farmers
agriculture graduates increases, the older organizations can develop the capacity to
high school-trained extension workers can be demand services from other actors within the
gradually replaced. This is already happening agricultural innovation systems (Heemskerk,
in many countries of Asia, Latin America and Nederlof and Wennink, 2008; Wennink and
the Near East (FAO, 1995). Heemskerk, 2006).
The major challenges in agricultural In a review of good practices for
education and training that face developing building innovative rural institutions, FAO
countries can be summarized as inadequate and IFAD (2012) discuss four different
institutional capacity; relatively low levels domains in which rural organizations can
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
79
support small farmers: enhancing access decentralization have rarely been sustainable.
to and management of natural resources; Externally induced collective action using
facilitating access to input and output blueprints for establishing new types of
markets; improving access to information and committees and platforms can ultimately even
knowledge; and enabling small producers damage a communitys pre-existing social
to engage in policy-making. All areas are capital (Vollan, 2012).
important in allowing small family farms Greater understanding is needed of
to innovate successfully. Collective action how to foster a culture of collective action
for access to knowledge and information and facilitate the creation of innovation-
can help small farmers create linkages to oriented producers organizations. In
service providers, share experiences and addition, organizational capacity should be
receive training to develop both their strengthened across the innovation system,
technical and managerial capacities. FAO not only at the level of farmers. Developing
and IFAD (2012) provide case studies of innovation capacity requires that all actors
successful arrangements in various domains and organizations within the public (e.g.
of information sharing involving producers research, extension, education) and private
organizations. These arrangements include sectors invest in becoming learning
strengthening the linkages between research organizations. Research and development
and the needs of small producers, improving organizations and educational and training
technical and managerial competencies, and institutes as parts of the innovation system
promoting the use of new communication may also need to introduce and develop
technologies. new processes to promote knowledge
Studies have shown severe gender biases management and sharing.
in most farmers organizations, natural
resource management groups and other
community-based organizations; these Building an enabling environment
biases not only disempower women, but also
reduce the effectiveness of the institutions While developing human and organizational
(Pandolfelli, Meinzen-Dick and Dohrn, 2008). capacities is important, alone it is not
Overcoming gender bias and the exclusion enough to foster innovation. A well-
of women from positions of responsibility functioning enabling environment
requires an understanding of the different including policies and rules that govern
motivations and incentives facing men and the mandates and operations of research
women when engaging in collective action. and extension organizations and their
Proactive measures are needed to promote engagement with other actors in the
the effective participation of women in mixed system is vital for individuals and
producers organizations and cooperatives organizations to perform more effectively.
by encouraging womens leadership. For Infrastructure is another core component of
example, cooperatives have transformed the enabling environment for innovation,
the Indian dairy industry by aggregating the including infrastructure to facilitate market
production of millions of men and women access (e.g. roads and storage facilities),
through a three-tiered collection system infrastructure for energy and water, and
to which even the smallest producers can financial infrastructure. The enabling
contribute (Narayan and Kapoor, 2008). environment creates the conditions necessary
Measures to support existing women-only for innovation to occur within society and
producers organizations have also proved is essential to effective innovation at the
valuable (FAO/IFAD, 2012). international, national and local levels
Producers organizations can have a (Rajalahti, Janssen and Pehu, 2008).
significant impact through the diffusion of The State of Food and Agriculture 2012:
ideas and the development of capacities, Investing in agriculture for a better future
but effective organizations can generally (FAO, 2012b), discussed the enabling
not be created through action from environment required to foster private
outside. Collective action is best generated investment in agriculture, including by
from within. Producers organizations smallholders (Box 25). Most of this discussion
created under pressure from projects or is equally relevant to innovation by farmers
80 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 25
Promoting investments in agriculture
The State of Food and Agriculture 2012: elements of a good general investment
Investing in agriculture for a better future climate are equally or more important
argued that more and better investments for agriculture: good governance,
are needed in agriculture. It showed macroeconomic stability, transparent and
that farmers are the largest investors stable trade policies, effective market
in developing-country agriculture and institutions, and respect for property
emphasized that they must therefore rights. Ensuring an appropriate framework
be central to any strategy aimed at for investment in agriculture also requires
promoting agricultural investments. The that environmental costs and benefits
report also presented evidence showing are incorporated into the economic
how public resources can be used more incentives for investors in agriculture and
effectively to catalyse private investment that mechanisms facilitating the transition
and how to channel public and private to sustainable production systems are
resources towards more socially beneficial established.
outcomes. Two key issues discussed in
the report were how to create a general Helping smallholders overcome
investment climate conducive to private challenges to investment
investments in agriculture, and how to Smallholders often face specific
help smallholders overcome the specific constraints to investment, including
constraints they face to investing. extreme poverty, weak property rights,
poor access to markets and financial
Creating a conducive investment climate services, vulnerability to shocks, and
Farmers investment decisions are directly limited ability to tolerate risk. Ensuring a
influenced by the investment climate level playing-field between smallholders
within which they operate. Farmers in and larger investors is important for
many low- and middle-income countries reasons of both equity and economic
often face an unfavourable environment efficiency, particularly for women
and weak incentives to invest in engaged in agriculture, who often
agriculture. While many farmers invest encounter even more severe constraints.
even in unsupportive investment climates Effective and inclusive producers
(because they may have few alternatives), organizations can enable smallholders
evidence shows that they invest more in to overcome some of the constraints
the presence of a conducive investment relating to access to markets, natural
climate. resources and financial services. Social
A conducive investment climate depends transfers and safety net schemes can also
on markets and governments. Markets be instrumental in overcoming two of
generate price incentives that signal to the most severe constraints faced by poor
farmers and other private entrepreneurs smallholders: lack of savings or access
when and where opportunities exist to credit, and lack of insurance against
for making profitable investments. risk. Such mechanisms can allow poor
Governments can influence the market smallholders and rural households to
incentives for investment in agriculture build assets and overcome poverty traps,
relative to other sectors through support but households choice of assets (human,
or taxation of the agriculture sector, physical, natural or financial capital) and
exchange rates and trade policies. activities (farming or non-farm activities)
Governments are also responsible for will depend on the overall incentive
creating the legal, policy and institutional structure as well as the households
environment that enables private investors individual circumstances.
to respond to market opportunities
in socially responsible ways. Many Source: FAO, 2012b.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
81
and will not be repeated here. The following natural resource management as a way of
subsections discuss two broad issues of solving problems that require collective action
particular significance to the development (Adekunle and Fatunabi, 2012), innovation
of innovation capacity: the forging of platforms have also been successfully used for
networks and partnerships, and the need for this purpose in agriculture.
a policy framework supporting agricultural Diverse membership is a key component
innovation. of a successful platform. As Thiele et al.
(2009) point out, a producers organization
Networks and partnerships for is not a platform, because it represents and
innovation works for the interests of only producers.
Innovation at the farm level is occurring Similarly, Farmer Field Schools are not
increasingly within network-like settings necessarily platforms. While they may have
where farmers interact and learn from other linkages to other stakeholders, FFS do not
farmers, input suppliers, traders, advisory typically include other types of actors, such
service providers, etc. Innovation does not take as researchers or traders; instead, they
place in isolation. One challenge is therefore focus on developing farmers individual and
to identify effective coordination mechanisms organizational capacities. However, an FFS
and systems that can facilitate interaction can lead into a platform if the farm group
and coherence among actors in value chains involved connects with other stakeholders to
and innovation systems. Two mechanisms address systemic issues.
being discussed and promoted are innovation Innovation platforms can encourage face-
brokers and innovation platforms. to-face dialogue, build trust and provide
A decisive factor for successful innovation space for stakeholders to collaborate and
is facilitation of knowledge sharing, which innovate. Platforms are often set up at the
is the role played by innovation brokers. An local level to improve the efficiency of a
innovation broker is a person or organization specific value chain. They can be particularly
that can help overcome shortages of useful in engaging the private sector in
information about what potential partners targeted innovation processes. Platforms at
can offer, and thus bring stakeholders the national or regional levels often set the
together and create networks and linkages agenda for agricultural development and
among them (Klerkx and Gildemacher, enable farmers, through their representatives,
2012). Key functions of innovation brokers to be involved in policy-making (Box 26).
typically include analysing and articulating Governments can support the establishment
demand, organizing networks, and and functioning of these networks and
facilitating interaction. Innovation brokers platforms, for instance by convening
can come from the public, private or third meetings with key actors at the country
sectors: national or international NGOs, level to influence regional political, policy
international donor agencies, farmers and economic bodies. Networks should
and industry organizations, research and be designed not only to provide technical
extension organizations, specialist third-party information but also to facilitate the flow of
organizations, government organizations, other types of information (e.g. commercial
ICT-based brokers, etc. (Klerkx, Hall and or managerial) among a wide range of actors.
Leeuwis, 2009). It is important that platforms also involve
Innovation platforms have been promoted the private sector to integrate it into the
as a practical approach for putting the innovation system (OECD, 2013).
agricultural innovation system into action At the global and regional levels, there
(Klerkx, Aarts and Leeuwis, 2010; Nederlof, is a similar need to strengthen existing
Wongtschowski and van der Lee, 2011). networks and establish new ones to foster
The platforms are mechanisms that help collaboration and coordination in designing
stakeholders interact in a concerted manner. and sharing innovations. The Global Forum
They can provide a space for information on Agricultural Research (GFAR), the Global
exchange, negotiation, planning and action, Conference on Agricultural Research for
and can bring together stakeholders at Development (GCARD), the Global Forum
different levels in the innovation system to for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) and
work towards a common goal. Applied in the Tropical Agricultural Platform (TAP)
82 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
BOX 26
Innovation platforms from Africa
Maize and legumes, Nigeria the Oil Palm Research Institute, the
This innovation platform brought Ministry of Agriculture).
together farmers, researchers, capacity-
building organizations, national extension Cowpeas and soybeans, Nigeria
services, the private sector and local The objective of this innovation platform
government. Together, participants was to address selected practical problems
set up training programmes and joint in the soybean and cowpea value chains.
experiments and supported farmers As a group, platform members (mainly
organizations. The platform triggered women farmers) were able to meet banks,
the development of an apex farmers policy-makers and other stakeholders that
organization to enable direct negotiations were previously not accessible to them.
between farmers and private companies. Achievements of the platform included
Achievements of the platform included improvements in seed distribution;
improved maize-legume production training of farmers in cowpea storage
systems; facilitation of mutual learning and management of fodder stockpiles;
processes among platform members; and presentation of a study on national
participatory experimentation with policies to policy-makers.
farmers; interorganizational coordination
to support change processes; development Soybean, Ghana
of an apex farmers organization and new A soybean cluster, consisting of
networks; and training of lead farmers in stakeholders active in a local soybean
pilot villages to disseminate new practices. value chain supported the formation of
farmers groups and their involvement
Oil-palm, Ghana in the development of soybean varieties
This innovation platform was organized and technologies. It also established an
on two levels. At the local level, important forum for stakeholders in the
experiments took place with small-scale soybean sector to meet and negotiate
processors to improve their practices. trade and marketing opportunities.
Findings fed into the higher-level Achievements included all members
platform, which lobbied for policy changes acknowledgement of learning from
at the national level and for change working together (about technologies,
in the practices of oil-palm producers operating as a value chain); access
and processors. Achievements of the to credit; intensification of soybean
platform included increased eagerness production; increased membership
of stakeholders to experiment and in the platform because of the crops
improve their knowledge; inclusion of popularity and the association-building
women members in district assemblies; skills of platform members; and increased
engagement of district assemblies in interest in commercial production from
discussions on small-scale processing; and subsistence-oriented farmers.
more attention to small-scale processing
activities from large organizations (e.g. Source: Nederlof, Wongtschowski and van der Lee, 2011.
83
umbrella national innovation strategy be well defined (Hazell and Hess, 2010).
(Anandajayasekeram, 2011). Governments in The composition of an innovation council
emerging economies increasingly recognize needs to be considered in the light of the
that a purely sectoral approach is not strategic tasks to be implemented, and must
sufficient, and tend to see their agricultural include representatives of the private sector,
innovation systems and associated policies NGOs and smallholders. Where innovation
as part of a larger national strategy for strategies are incorporated in agriculture-
innovation affecting all sectors (Tropical related ministries, a higher-level entity is
Agriculture Platform, 2013). In addition, sometimes set up to coordinate relevant
more than in other sectors, political policies among the appropriate ministries
interests in agriculture tend to benefit (Roseboom, 2012).
from maintaining the existing situation; The regulatory environment can strongly
embedding policies to promote innovation in affect innovation among family farmers by
agriculture within overall strategies can help setting standards, reducing risks, decreasing
overcome this strong resistance to change administrative burdens and responding to
(FAO, 2013f). market failures. Inappropriate regulations can
A national innovation policy provides delay technological progress and transfer, and
guidance on how to coordinate a wide impose excessive transaction costs on farmers
spectrum of policy domains science and and other organizations. The regulatory
technology, education, and economic, environment for fostering innovation in
industrial, infrastructure and taxation, family farming encompasses such issues as
among others to create an environment access to markets, particularly where markets
that stimulates innovation (Roseboom, are weak; access to land where land markets
2012). Strategies need to take into account and security of tenure are absent; laws
the range of policies and regulations that pertaining to contracts, to promote contract
affect the capacity of all sectors to create and farming; intellectual property rights; health
adopt innovation, and systems of incentives and food safety; biosafety and environmental
or disincentives to foster innovation are regulations; and the legal arrangements for
needed. Eliminating the main impediments farmers organizations (OECD, 2013).
to innovation involves ensuring a stable In a survey of peer-reviewed research on the
macroeconomic environment and open and adoption and impact of transgenic crops in
well-functioning markets. It also requires developing countries, Raney (2006) concluded
setting appropriate regulations transparently that institutional factors such as national
and fostering human capital. Other measures agricultural research capacity, environmental
include policies for health, education and and food safety regulations, intellectual
infrastructure. property rights and agricultural input
Policy coherence is essential in improving markets are at least as important as the
the performance of an innovation system technology itself in determining the level and
that supports family farming. A national distribution of economic benefits to farmers
innovation policy needs to define the roles and other actors. In China, for example,
of the different contributing ministries and successful adoption of insect-resistant cotton
other stakeholders in the system and to set depended on the strength of the highly
priorities for public investment across sectors. developed public agricultural research system,
Coordination at the local, national, regional and was found to be decidedly pro-poor,
and international levels is crucial, given the as proportional income gains on small and
growing number of actors in the innovation medium-sized farms were more than twice
system and the increasing complexity of those on the largest farms. In contrast, in
international challenges. Argentina, strict enforcement of intellectual
The high-level innovation councils found property rights for insect-resistant cotton,
in some OECD countries can play important and the high costs of seeds, limited economic
roles in setting priorities and agendas and benefits and thus adoption. However,
acting as an overall policy coordination unpatented, transgenic, herbicide-tolerant
platform (Finland and the Republic of soybeans were widely adopted, leading to
Korea are examples of countries with an estimated increase of 10 percent in total
such bodies). However, their tasks must factor productivity. Evidence from South
84 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
Africa underlines the role of local institutions producers organizations, can defend the
in the adoption of new crop varieties; several interests of family farmers by enhancing
studies found positive and pro-poor impacts their participation in formulating and
for smallholder farmers in areas where a implementing the policies, programmes and
local cooperative provided insect-resistant projects that concern them (Bienabe and Le
cottonseed on credit, along with technical Coq, 2004). The challenge for family farmers
advice. However, this initiative was successful is to build a collective voice to ensure that
only because the cooperative ran the only their concerns are taken into consideration in
cotton gin in the area so could ensure that policy formulation and national development
loans to farmers were recovered; when planning.
another cotton gin opened in the region, the The participation of small-scale producers
cooperative was no longer assured of debt organizations in the design of public policies
recovery and ceased providing insect-resistant and in publicprivate sector dialogue helps
cottonseed on credit. to guarantee that public policy-makers listen
Policies, public investments and the to the voice of rural people. Participatory
regulatory environment have significant mechanisms reveal peoples needs and
implications for the ways in which provide quality information to governments
agricultural products are produced and reach and public institutions, helping them to
domestic and foreign markets, for promoting design appropriate and effective agricultural
private investment in agricultural R&D, and and rural development policies. To ensure
for fostering innovation and the use of more that the voices of all farmers are heard, it
sustainable agricultural practices by family is indispensable that women are actively
farmers (Roseboom, 2012). Policies may also engaged in these processes.
determine which stakeholders benefit most In recent years, organizations of farmers
from innovation, by emphasizing large or and other producers in Latin America,
small farms, commercialization rather than Asia and Africa have established regional
food security, or enterprises dominated networks to strengthen their capacities and
by men rather than women. For example, influence national and regional policies.
if policies fail to address the challenges These fora include the Confederation of
that women face in securing land tenure, Family Farmer Producer Organisations
women may be less interested in investing (COPROFAM), the Asian Farmers Association
in more intensified production. It is up to for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA),
governments to make the right choices based the Network of Peasant Farmers and
on their development objectives and policy Agricultural Producers Organizations of
priorities (Box 27). West Africa (ROPPA) and the East African
A major issue is ensuring that policies to Farmers Federation (EAFF). They allow
support innovation take into consideration family farmers to participate in decision-
and address the concerns of small family making through deliberative processes with
farms. Policy-makers are often not fully governments and other actors. However,
aware of the challenges faced by family family farmers still need to strengthen their
farmers, or of family farmers role in capacities to participate in and influence
agricultural growth and sustainable policy dialogue and decisions, to create
development. The pervasive and persistent an enabling environment that is more
influence of elite groups has been identified favourable to them and their needs.
as the primary obstacle to reforms in
research and extension systems (see, for
example, Poulton and Kanyinga, 2013). This Measuring, learning and scaling up
undue influence can partially be attributed
to small farmers limited ability to make Many examples of good practices in
their voices heard, and/or a failure to innovation among family farmers are from
ensure broad consultative structures that pilot projects (Box 28). There is not yet
include family farmers. As a result, public enough empirical evidence on how these
policies often favour larger, commercial practices affect smallholder productivity and
farmers over smaller family farms. income and on the potential for replicating
Rural institutions, particularly powerful and adapting them. One reason for this
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
85
BOX 27
Agricultural innovation in sub-Saharan Africa
BOX 28
Experiences of agricultural innovation in Africa
87
political commitments and attitudes, and and Birner, 2008). External influencing
organizational dimensions. factors include linkages to other sectors of
Organizations dealing with rapid change the economy (manufacturing and services);
must improve their capacity for continuous general science and technology policy;
learning and innovation. Collective international actors, sources of knowledge
learning by organizations requires a and markets; and the political system.
combination of two elements: the ability Given the complexity of the challenge,
to share knowledge; and the ability to governments need to take the lead in
make implicit knowledge explicit, so that enabling and supporting M&E systems
an organization can digest it and transfer that facilitate access to and sharing of
it across time (Ekboir et al., 2009). This information and knowledge among and
requirement implies reconsidering the role within these different elements of the
of M&E which was traditionally designed innovation system, and are thus essential to
to ensure better accountability and a dynamic process of innovation benefiting
moving towards a system that generates family farms.
knowledge and facilitates learning. Given
the methodological challenges of measuring
impact, and the concern regarding capacity Key messages
development, the focus is increasingly on
measuring outcomes and identifying lessons Capacity development for innovation
for improving the innovation process (Klerkx should be based on a long-term
and Gildemacher, 2012; Hall et al., 2003). strategy covering three interconnected
However, measuring the capacity to dimensions: individual innovation
innovate is in itself a challenge. Identifying capacity, organizational innovation
appropriate indicators for tracking progress capacity, and the creation of an enabling
in capacity development and its process environment.
outcomes is not easy. As innovation At the individual level, greater
programmes are based on complex processes investment is needed in human capital
at different levels and involving many and education to support participants in
stakeholders, there is need for mechanisms the innovation system family farmers,
in which the performance of the entire service providers, traders and processors,
learning, adaption and reflection process is researchers, policy-makers, etc. in
regularly reviewed, and the activities, roles, developing their capacity to innovate.
relationships and effectiveness of different Special attention to youth and women
actors are evaluated. is important. Sustained political support
The measurement and learning system for investments in agricultural education
needs to respond to the many different and training is needed to develop a
demands of the various stakeholders within system of core institutions.
the innovation system, and also of donors At the organizational level, it is
and development agencies where external particularly important to support
funding is involved. Improving the design and facilitate the strengthening of
of the system requires both reducing its producers and other community-based
complexity by dividing it into discrete parts, organizations. Effective and inclusive
with recognizable indicators attributable producers organizations can support
to specific interventions, and ensuring innovation by their members, including
that these parts form a coherent whole. by facilitating linkages with other actors
Essential elements include: (i) a knowledge in the innovation system researchers,
and education domain the research advisory service providers, value chains,
and education systems; (ii) a business and etc. Particular emphasis must be put
enterprise domain value-chain stakeholders on womens inclusion in producers
and family farmers; and (iii) bridging organizations.
institutions extension services, political At the system level, networks and
channels and stakeholder platforms that link linkages among different actors in the
the two domains and facilitate the transfer innovation system can facilitate the
of knowledge and information (Spielman exchange of information and knowledge
88 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
and foster collaboration towards improve the capacity of all actors in the
common goals. Useful mechanisms are innovation system to respond to change.
innovation brokers individuals or Involving effective and representative
organizations that can bring different producers organizations in policy-
actors together and innovation making can ensure that public policies
platforms, which provide a space for take into account the needs of family
information sharing, negotiation, farms.
planning and action among different There is need to learn from experiences
actors in an innovation system. and good practices in innovation and
The creation of an enabling to develop capacity in measuring
environment for innovation is essential. the impacts of different efforts and
This means that policies, incentives interventions to promote innovation
and governance mechanisms must capacity.
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
89
7. Conclusions: fostering
innovation in family farming
Feeding the world in the next few decades Innovation can occur only in the presence
will depend critically on the more than of well-functioning innovation systems
500million family farms that form the whose various actors and components work
backbone of agriculture in most countries. together to bring beneficial change. Essential
These farmers are called on to produce much building blocks for innovation include well-
of the additional 60percent of food39 that run local government institutions, efficient
the worlds population will need by 2050. At agricultural advisory services, productive
the same time, family farms will have to play research and development centres, efficient
a leading role in the continuing fight against producers organizations, cooperatives and
hunger and poverty and in preserving the other community-based organizations, and
natural environment against spreading at the most basic level an education system
degradation and advancing climate change. that fosters students capacity to create and
Family farms are central to meeting some innovate.
of the principal challenges that face the Family farms already produce most of
world in the twenty-first century. Their role the worlds food and occupy large tracts of
derives in part from their sheer numbers the land, especially in developing countries.
more than nine out of ten farms in the world If they are to increase their contributions
are family farms but it also stems from the to food production and poverty reduction
huge potential of family farms to produce and act increasingly as stewards of the
more food sustainably and to generate environment, they must be helped to face
higher rural incomes. challenges in the best ways possible.
The key to achieving this potential lies in The changes required in family farming
innovation. For many small farms, innovation will involve more than the application of
means moving away from growing food modern science, technology and marketing
principally for their own consumption and and management expertise. It will also be
going into commercial production. It means essential to farm more sustainably, in closer
adopting new approaches, technologies and harmony with nature, and to re-evaluate
practices that not only increase production traditional local knowledge and practices.
and efficiency, but also do so in full respect Innovation in agriculture cannot be viewed
of natural processes and ecosystems. in isolation. Successful innovation must result
However, if innovation is to take in higher labour productivity among farming
place on the farm, various changes must families to increase their incomes and reduce
occur at other societal levels, including rural poverty. Labour productivity can also be
most obviously the public sector, where enhanced by the availability of alternative
appropriate policies, funding and incentives and supplementary sources of employment
must be in place, along with measures to and income for farming households.
encourage investment from the private Appropriate measures for broader rural
sector. Government policies are often skewed development that provide alternative
in favour of large landowners and farms, and livelihoods for farmers and other household
must be reoriented to foster innovation by members must be considered an integral part
smaller farmers. of promoting innovation in family farming.
Family farms are very diverse both among
and within countries and communities, and
they have different potentials and needs.
39
Compared with 2005/2007. This diversity calls for diversity in policy
90 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
solutions; agricultural innovation systems Reaching large numbers of these farmers and
and government support must be able integrating them into effective agricultural
to satisfy the different needs of different innovation systems may be costly, hence
types of family farm. Some family farms the need to enhance social innovation and
are large commercial enterprises, which communication technologies to reduce
are likely to be already integrated into costs. Collective action through farmers
functioning agricultural innovation systems. organizations can help these farmers to
Their main requirements are an enabling innovate in agriculture and contribute to
environment, adequate infrastructure and their livelihoods and food security. However,
public agricultural research to ensure long- for most of them, escape from poverty
term production potential. They may also requires efforts beyond agriculture and
need appropriate incentives and regulations agricultural innovation, including overall
to motivate their adoption of sustainable rural development policies and effective
practices that ensure the provision of social protection.
essential environmental services (e.g. climate Governments need to develop their own
change mitigation, watershed protection, strategies for different types of farmers,
biodiversity conservation). which also take into account social and
Some small and medium-sized family farms equity dimensions. Governments have a clear
are already market-oriented and supply local, responsibility for ensuring that rural areas
national or international markets; others and small family farms are not forgotten,
have the potential to become commercial, but the choice of policy instruments for
given the right incentives, access to markets supporting family farms will depend on
and support. These farms are less likely national circumstances and governments
to be linked with agricultural innovation rural and overall development strategies and
systems than are larger ones, but they may policy objectives.
have significant potential for innovation. It is important to remember that family
Helping this group of farmers to innovate farms are made up not only of crops and
can have a major impact on food security animals, but also of people. Within a family
and can transform global agriculture. Special farm, different household members will
attention must be given to improving the relate to innovation systems in different ways
innovation capacity of small and medium- and may have different needs. Capturing and
sized farms and integrating them into considering these differences, particularly
innovation systems that are responsive to gender-based ones, is essential to making
their needs. These efforts involve helping the innovation system more effective. Two
small and medium-sized farms overcome groups of people are particularly important:
some of the constraints (financial limitations, women and young people. Women farmers
high start-up costs, insecure property rights, generally face specific constraints to their
etc.) that may prevent them from adopting productivity and capacity to innovate.
improved practices. Farms also need Introducing a gender perspective into
agricultural research and inclusive advisory agricultural innovation systems will improve
services that meet their needs and are suited their effectiveness and enhance the
to their specific circumstances. Farmers productivity of family farms.
organizations can play a central role in Young people are important because they
integrating small and medium-sized farmers often have an innate capacity to innovate
into effective innovation systems. that older household members may lack
Small subsistence family farms with limited and because they represent the future of
commercial potential face similar constraints agriculture. Although youth can play a major
to innovation and have many of the same role in ensuring that families connect to
needs as small and medium-sized farms innovation systems, younger generations
with commercial potential. However, most are increasingly leaving agriculture. In part,
subsistence farms depend to a large extent this is an expected feature of evolving
on other, non-farming sources of income, economies. However, if youth come to see
and are unlikely to be able to emerge farming as a business, with real potential for
from poverty through agriculture alone. innovation and profit, there may be positive
I n n ovat i o n i n fa m i ly fa r m i n g
91
effects on the prospects for growth and Investing in research and development.
innovation in the sector. Investing in agricultural R&D is indispensable
Some of the key areas for promoting for sustaining and accelerating growth
innovation in family farming for sustainable in agricultural productivity. The private
productivity growth are summarized in the sector can make an important contribution,
following paragraphs. and does so in many countries; however,
because of the public good nature of much
Removing barriers and creating incentives research, a strong public commitment to
for the adoption of technologies and investing in R&D is needed. Such investments
practices for sustainable productivity have high returns, but also generally long
growth. Farmers are ready to adopt new pay-off periods and uncertain benefits,
technologies and practices that they especially for basic research. Long-term
perceive as advantageous and are capable public commitment to continuous and stable
of implementing. However, several barriers funding of agricultural research is therefore
make it difficult for farmers to adopt fundamental. Flexible forms of shorter-
innovative processes, and women farmers term project or programme funding can
face more of these barriers than do men. contribute, but there needs to be a source of
Prohibitive impediments to sustainable stable institutional financing to ensure long-
productivity growth include the absence term research capability.
of marketing infrastructure, and insecure Countries should carefully consider the
property and tenure rights. Another best strategy for their specific needs and
formidable barrier is the initial cost of capacities. All countries need a certain
adopting improved practices with long- level of domestic research capacity, but for
term benefits, as this cost can be high and those with limited financial resources and
pay-off periods may be long. Long pay-off limited capacity to maintain strong national
periods are particularly prohibitive when research programmes, the most effective
secure land tenure and access to financing strategy will be to tap into the results of
and credit are lacking. Where innovative international research and research by
activities and practices generate public goods other countries and to focus on adapting
such as climate change mitigation, and these to their domestic circumstances.
incur significant costs, farmers will engage Other countries, with greater resources and
in them only if they are given appropriate less possibility of exploiting research by
compensation or incentives. As appropriate others, need to devote funds to more basic
practices and technologies are often highly research. There is potential for South-South
context-specific, the lack of solutions cooperation in agricultural research between
designed for local conditions can also be a countries with larger public-sector research
serious impediment. institutes and smaller national agricultural
Local institutions, including producers research institutes in countries facing similar
organizations, cooperatives and other agro-ecological challenges. International
community-based organizations, are central partnerships and a careful division of labour
to farmers ability to innovate. These between international research with broader
institutions can play a key role in overcoming applicability and national research geared to
some of the barriers faced by small family domestic needs are also needed.
farms in adopting improved practices. There is need for research that is relevant
Where necessary, local institutions must be to, and meets the specific needs of, family
strengthened to facilitate smallholders access farms, especially smaller ones. Farmer-led
to technical and management information, innovation can make a major contribution,
financing and markets. The effective but needs to be supplemented by formal
functioning of local institutions, and their research. Linking scientific research to
coordination with the public and private traditional knowledge can make research
sectors and small farmers men and women efforts more relevant and effective.
are vital in helping small family farms adopt Mechanisms and institutional arrangements
the innovative practices that will improve must be in place to promote participatory
their own lives and their communities. research efforts involving family farmers
92 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
and to ensure that family farms and their Schools can be effective in engaging women
organizations are involved in setting research and other household members in extension,
priorities and defining research agendas. It is but proactive measures may be needed to
critical that women farmers are also involved. ensure womens participation.
93
Key messages of the report innovation strategies must now focus
not just on increasing yields but also
The State of Food and Agriculture 2014: on a more complex set of objectives,
Promoting innovation in family farming including preserving natural resources
offers the following key messages: and raising rural incomes. They must
Family farms are part of the solution also take into account todays complex
for achieving food security and policy and institutional environment for
sustainable rural development; the agriculture and the more pluralistic set
worlds food security and environmental of actors engaged in decision-making.
sustainability depend on the more An innovation system that facilitates
than 500million family farms that and coordinates the activities of all
form the backbone of agriculture in stakeholders is essential.
most countries. Family farms represent Public investment in agricultural R&D
more than nine out of ten farms in the and extension and advisory services
world and can serve as a catalyst for should be increased and refocused to
sustained rural development. They are emphasize sustainable intensification
the stewards of the worlds agricultural and closing yield and labour productivity
resources and the source of more than gaps. Agricultural research and advisory
80 percent of the worlds food supply, services generate public goods
but many of them are poor and food- productivity, improved sustainability,
insecure themselves. Innovation in lower food prices, poverty reduction,
family farming is urgently needed to etc. calling for strong government
lift farmers out of poverty and help involvement. R&D should focus on
the world achieve food security and sustainable intensification, continuing
sustainable agriculture. to expand the production frontier but in
Family farms are an extremely diverse sustainable ways, working at the system
group, and innovation systems must level and incorporating traditional
take this diversity into account. knowledge. Extension and advisory
Innovation strategies for all family farms services should focus on closing yield
must consider their agro-ecological gaps and raising the labour productivity
and socio-economic conditions and of small and medium-sized farmers.
government policy objectives for Partnering with producers organizations
the sector. Public efforts to promote can help ensure that R&D and extension
agricultural innovation for small and services are inclusive and responsive to
medium-sized family farms should farmers needs.
ensure that agricultural research, All family farmers need an enabling
advisory services, market institutions environment for innovation, including
and infrastructure are inclusive. good governance, stable macroeconomic
Applied agricultural research for crops, conditions, transparent legal and
livestock species and management regulatory regimes, secure property
practices of importance to these farms rights, risk management tools and
are public goods and should be a market infrastructure. Improved
priority. A supportive environment access to local or wider markets for
for producers and other community- inputs and outputs, including through
based organizations can help promote government procurement from family
innovation, through which small and farmers, can provide strong incentives
medium-sized family farms could for innovation, but farmers in remote
transform world agriculture. areas and marginalized groups often
The challenges facing agriculture and face severe barriers. In addition,
the institutional environment for sustainable agricultural practices often
agricultural innovation are far more have high start-up costs and long pay-
complex than ever before; the world off periods and farmers may need
must create an innovation system that appropriate incentives to provide
embraces this complexity. Agricultural important environmental services.
94 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
97
Notes on the annex tables
Key
Numbers presented in the tables may differ from the original data
sources because of rounding or data processing. To separate decimals
from whole numbers a full point (.) is used.
Technical notes
Agricultural holdings
Agricultural holdings reported by agricultural censuses include
crop and livestock production only; holdings engaged in forestry
or fisheries are only included if they also are engaged in crop and
livestock production. An agricultural holding is an economic unit
of agricultural production under single management comprising
all livestock kept and all land used wholly or partly for agricultural
production purposes, without regard to title, legal form, or size. Single
management may be exercised by an individual or a household, jointly
by two or more individuals or household, by a clan or tribe, or by a
juridical person such as a corporation or a government agency. The
holdings land may consist of one or more parcels, located in one or
more separate areas or in one or more territorial or administrative
divisions, provided the parcels share the same production means
utilized by the holding, such as labour, farm building, machinery or
draught animals. For a limited number of countries, the number of
holdings was not available and the number of agricultural households
is therefore presented in Table A1.
98 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
Agricultural area
Agricultural area reported by FAOSTAT is the sum of areas under: (a)
arable land, (b) permanent crops, and (c) permanent meadows and
pastures. Arable land is land under temporary agricultural crops
(multiple-cropped areas are counted only once), temporary meadows
for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens and
land temporarily fallow (less than five years). The abandoned land
resulting from shifting cultivation is not included in this category.
Permanent crops refers to land cultivated with long-term crops
which do not have to be replanted for several years (such as cocoa and
coffee); land under trees and shrubs producing flowers; and nurseries
(except those for forest trees, which should be classified under
forest). Permanent meadows and pastures refers to land used
permanently (five years or more) to grow herbaceous forage crops,
either cultivated or growing wild (wild prairie or grazing land).
Holdings
Holdings refers to share of agricultural holdings included in each land
size class; for definition see notes to Table A1.
Area
Refers to the share of area of holdings in each land size class. For
some countries that do not report area of holding, the table presents
a partial measure, such as the agricultural area, agricultural land,
cropland, utilized agricultural area or other.
Statistic al annex
99
Area of holding provides the most comprehensive measure of the
size of the holding. It refers to all land managed and operated by an
agricultural holding, without regard to the right to access the land.
It includes the land owned by the holder plus the land rented-in plus
the land operated under other forms of tenure. This should not be
confused with agricultural areas, which is a subcategory of operated
area of the holdings.
Agricultural area or agricultural land consists of cropland and
permanent meadows and pastures.
Cropland consists of arable land plus land under permanent crops.
Utilized agricultural area includes arable land, kitchen gardens,
permanent meadows and pastures, and permanent crops.
For details, refer to the original source FAO (2013a) and FAO (2001),
as well as FAO (2005).
Country notes
Data for China exclude data for Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region of China and Macao Special Administrative Region of China.
Whenever possible, data from 1992 or 1995 onwards are shown
for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Available data for years prior
to 1992 are shown for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR
in the table listings).
Data for years prior to 1992 are provided for the former Yugoslavia
(Yugoslavia SFR in the table listings).
Observations for the years following 1992 are provided for the
individual countries formed from the former Yugoslavia; these are
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, and Slovenia, as well as Serbia and Montenegro.
Observations are provided separately for Serbia and for Montenegro
after the year 2006.
Data are shown when possible for the individual countries formed
from the former Czechoslovakia the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Data for years prior to 1993 are shown under Czechoslovakia.
Data are shown for Eritrea and Ethiopia separately, if possible; in
most cases before 1992 data on Eritrea and Ethiopia are aggregated
and presented as Ethiopia PDR.
Data for Yemen refer to that country from 1990 onward; data
for previous years refer to aggregated data of the former Peoples
Democratic Republic of Yemen and the former Yemen Arab Republic.
Separate observations are shown for Belgium and Luxembourg
whenever possible.
101
9. Government of Vanuatu. 1993. Vanuatu Agricultural Census 1993.
Main results. Port Vila, Vanuatu National Statistics Office.
10. Government of Albania. 2012. Preliminary results of agriculture
census, 2012. Tirana, Instituti i Statistikave.
11. European Union. 2012. Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics.
Main results 201011. Eurostat Pocketbooks. Luxembourg.
12. Government of Montenegro. 2011. Popis poljoprivrede 2010.
Struktura poljoprivrednih gazdinstava. Znamo ta imamo. Podgorica,
Statistical Office of Montenegro.
13. Government of Republic of Moldova. 2011. Recensamntul general
agricol 2011. Rezultate preliminare. Chisinau, Biroul National de
Statistica al Republicii.
14. Government of the Russian Federation. 2008. 2006 All-Russia
Census of Agriculture: Russian Federation summary and country-level
data. Federal State Statistics Service. Moscow, Statistics of Russia
Information and Publishing Center.
15. Government of Republic of Macedonia. 2007. Census of
Agriculture, 2007. Basic statistical data on individual agricultural
holdings and business entities in the Republic of Macedonia, by
regions. Book I. Skopje, State Statistical Office of the Republic of
Macedonia.
16. Government of Argentina. 2009. Censo Nacional Agropecuario
2008CNA 08. Resultados provisorios. Buenos Aires, Instituto Nacional
de Estadstica y Censos.
17. Government of Brazil. 2009. Censo Agropecurio 2006. Rio de
Janeiro, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica (IBGE).
18. Government of Chile. 2007. VII Censo Nacional Agropecuario y
Forestal. Santiago, Instituto Nacional de Estadsticas.
19. Government of El Salvador. 2009. IV Censo Agropecuario 2007
2008. Resultados nacionales. San Salvador, Ministerio de Economa.
20. Government of France. 2011. Agreste: la statistique agricole.
Numro 02, Novembre 2011. Premires tendances, recensement
agricole 2010 Guyane. Press report. Cayenne, French Guiana, Ministre
de lAgriculture, de lAlimentation, de la Pche, de la Ruralit et de
lAmnagement du Territoire.
21. Government of France. 2011. Agreste: la statistique agricole.
Numro 10, septembre 2011. Premires tendances, recensement
agricole 2010 Guadeloupe. Basse-terre, Ministre de lAgriculture, de
lAlimentation, de la Pche, de la Ruralit et de lAmnagement du
Territoire.
22. Government of Haiti. 2012. Synthse nationale des rsultats du
Recensement Gnral de Lagriculture (RGA) 20082009. Port-au-
Prince, Ministre de lAgriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du
Dveloppement Rural.
23. Government of Jamaica. 2007. Census of Agriculture 2007.
Preliminary report. Kingston, The Statistical Institute of Jamaica.
24. Government of France. 2011. Agreste: la statistique agricole.
Numro 7, septembre 2011. Premires tendances, recensement
agricole 2010 Martinique. Press report. Fort-de-France, Ministre
de lAgriculture, de lAlimentation, de la Pche, de la Ruralit et de
lAmnagement du Territoire.
25. Government of Mexico. 2009. VIII Censo Agrcola, Ganadero y
Forestal 2007. Aguascalientes, Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y
Geografa (INEGI).
102 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
103
45. Government of Malta. 2012. Census of Agriculture 2010. Valletta,
National Statistics Office.
46. USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Northern Mariana
Islands. Commonwealth and Island Data. Geographic Area Series,
Vol.1, Part56. Washington, DC, National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS).
47. Government of Slovenia. 2012. The 2010 Agricultural Census. Every
farm counts! Brochure. Ljubljana, Statistical Office of the Republic of
Slovenia.
48. USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States. Summary
and state data. Geographic Area Series, Vol. 1, Part 51. Washington,
DC, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
49. USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Virgin Islands of the
United States. Territory and island data. Geographic Area Series,
Vol.1, Part 54. Washington, DC, National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS).
104 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A1
Number of agricultural holdings and size of agricultural area
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES 547706 3155412 3278803 3378111 3541777 3613651 3521049
East Asia and the Pacific 253837 571515 611593 657205 746607 770859 764584
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea .. .. 2380 2380 2515 2530 2550 2555
Kiribati .. .. 39 38 38 39 34 34
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic 783 201011 4 1550 1482 1609 1662 1839 2378
Marshall Islands .. .. .. .. .. 12 12 13
Nauru .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Niue 0 2009 6 3 4 5 5 5 5
Palau 0 1990 7 .. .. .. 5 5 5
Samoa 16 2009 8 56 64 77 54 48 35
Solomon Islands .. .. 55 55 59 69 77 91
Tonga 11 2001 1 27 32 34 32 30 31
Tuvalu .. .. 2 2 2 2 2 2
Statistic al annex
105
TABLE A1 (cont.)
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Viet Nam 10690 2001 1 6292 6422 6876 6751 9483 10842
Europe and Central Asia 37342 614775 622578 628637 631544 637138 632694
Latin America and the Caribbean 21022 559454 612767 652864 688275 708496 739589
Antigua 5 1980 7 .. .. .. .. .. ..
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) .. .. 30042 30734 34099 35796 37006 37055
106 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A1 (cont.)
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Dominica 9 1995 7 17 19 19 18 22 26
Dominican Republic 305 1970 7 2190 2344 2625 2570 2515 2447
Grenada 18 1995 7 22 22 16 12 13 11
Guadeloupe 8 2010 21 58 63 59 53 48 42
Martinique 3 2010 24 34 38 38 36 33 27
Suriname 22 1980 7 41 52 73 89 86 82
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 424 200708 32 19232 20026 21040 21857 21398 21250
Middle East and North Africa 14927 200889 206641 203359 209384 212067 198895
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 4332 2003 1 59271 60154 58280 62997 63823 48957
107
TABLE A1 (cont.)
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Syrian Arab Republic 486 1980 7 14941 13458 14115 13512 13723 13864
Maldives .. .. 5 6 7 8 10 7
Sri Lanka 3265 2002 1 1723 2339 2349 2342 2351 2620
Burkina Faso 887 1993 7 8139 8220 8835 9550 10660 11765
Central African Republic 304 1980 7 4738 4840 4945 5008 5149 5080
Cte dIvoire 1118 2001 1 15680 16300 17370 18950 19600 20500
Democratic Republic of the Congo 4480 1990 7 25050 25400 25750 25980 25550 25755
TABLE A1 (cont.)
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Runion 8 2010 38 61 62 65 63 49 46
Seychelles 5 2002 1 5 5 5 4 4 3
Sierra Leone 223 1980 7 2612 2669 2729 2825 2992 3435
South Africa 1093 2000 1 101335 95390 94100 96005 98013 96374
United Republic of Tanzania 4902 200203 1 26000 32000 33000 34003 34100 37300
Andorra .. .. 26 25 21 19 19 20
Aruba .. .. 2 2 2 2 2 2
Bahamas 2 1994 7 10 10 11 12 13 15
Statistic al annex
109
TABLE A1 (cont.)
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Bahrain 1 1980 7 7 7 9 8 9 8
Barbados 17 1989 7 19 19 19 19 18 15
Bermuda .. .. 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cayman Islands .. .. 3 3 3 3 3 3
Faroe Islands .. .. 3 3 3 3 3 3
French Polynesia .. .. 44 44 44 43 43 46
Guam 0 2007 44 16 17 20 20 20 18
Liechtenstein .. .. 9 9 9 7 7 7
Malta 13 2010 45 18 14 13 13 10 10
Monaco .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
TABLE A1 (cont.)
Number of Census Source Agricultural area
holdings year/ (Thousand ha)
(Thousands) round
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Qatar 4 200001 1 51 51 56 61 66 66
Republic of Korea 3270 2000 1 2113 2299 2245 2161 1945 1756
San Marino .. .. 1 1 1 1 1 1
Saudi Arabia 242 1999 1 86170 86467 87013 123672 173791 173355
Singapore 16 1970 7 14 10 7 1 1 1
United Kingdom 233 19992000 1 19800 18843 18320 18143 16953 17164
United States of America 2205 2007 48 447509 433300 428163 426948 414944 411263
111
TABLE A2
Shares of agricultural holdings and agricultural area, by land size class
(Percentage)
holdings 63 20 13 3 1 0 0
LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES
area 20 22 31 16 9 1 2
holdings 62 19 14 4 1 0 0
LOWER-MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
area 15 16 26 15 9 8 11
holdings 27 15 27 13 8 6 5
UPPER-MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
area 0 1 3 3 4 7 81
holdings 34 18 15 9 7 7 9
HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES
area 1 1 2 2 4 8 82
holdings 72 12 10 3 1 1 1
WORLD
area 8 4 7 5 5 7 65
holdings 93 5 2 0 0 .. ..
China
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 82 14 5 .. .. .. ..
Cook Islands
area 43 29 28 .. .. .. ..
holdings 43 12 20 13 7 3 2
Fiji
area 2 3 11 15 14 17 39
holdings 71 17 11 1 0 .. ..
Indonesia
area 30 25 34 8 3 .. ..
holdings 38 35 26 .. .. .. ..
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
area 13 30 57 .. .. .. ..
holdings 34 23 30 11 2 0 ..
Myanmar
area 5 14 37 29 13 3 ..
holdings 40 28 24 6 2 0 ..
Philippines
area 9 17 33 20 10 11 ..
holdings 19 32 30 12 5 2 ..
Samoa
area 2 11 25 22 18 21 ..
holdings 20 23 37 16 4 1 0
Thailand
area 3 9 34 31 13 5 5
holdings 85 10 5 0 0 .. ..
Viet Nam
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 60 30 10 .. .. .. ..
Albania
area 7 11 83 .. .. .. ..
112 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A2 (cont.)
<1 ha 12 ha 25 ha 510 ha 1020 ha 2050 ha >50 ha
(Percentage)
holdings 77 .. 20 .. .. 2 1
Bulgaria
area 7 .. 8 .. .. 7 78
holdings 70 23 5 1 0 0 0
Georgia
area 24 23 12 5 4 4 27
holdings 85 7 5 2 1 0 0
Kyrgyzstan
area 8 8 15 10 8 9 42
holdings 0 6 20 22 24 20 7
Latvia
area .. 0 3 8 17 31 40
holdings 0 8 47 23 14 6 2
Lithuania
area 0 1 14 15 18 17 35
holdings 50 20 23 6 1 0 0
Romania
area 5 8 20 11 4 2 50
holdings 28 19 31 17 5 1 ..
Serbia
area 5 9 30 33 16 7 ..
holdings 17 18 31 18 11 5 1
Turkey
area 1 4 16 21 24 23 11
holdings .. .. 15 8 10 16 51
Argentina
area .. .. 0 0 0 1 98
holdings 11 10 16 13 14 17 19
Brazil
area 0 0 1 1 3 7 88
holdings 15 10 18 16 15 14 13
Chile
area 0 0 1 1 3 5 90
holdings 18 14 21 14 11 11 11
Colombia
area 0 1 3 4 6 14 72
holdings 53 21 18 5 1 1 1
Dominica
area 8 15 22 14 6 10 25
holdings 29 14 20 12 9 9 6
Ecuador
area 1 1 4 6 8 19 61
holdings 16 31 42 6 2 2 ..
French Guiana
area 2 9 25 8 4 51 ..
holdings 85 8 5 1 0 0 ..
Grenada
area 18 14 20 11 7 30 ..
holdings 31 27 32 7 2 1 ..
Guadeloupe
area 5 13 33 16 7 26 ..
holdings 78 10 6 2 1 2 0
Guatemala
area 12 7 10 9 5 36 21
holdings .. .. 55 16 12 17 ..
Honduras
area .. .. 8 7 10 75 ..
Statistic al annex
113
TABLE A2 (cont.)
<1 ha 12 ha 25 ha 510 ha 1020 ha 2050 ha >50 ha
(Percentage)
holdings 69 15 12 2 1 0 0
Jamaica
area 11 9 16 6 4 6 48
holdings 64 13 16 4 2 1 ..
Martinique
area 9 8 20 11 9 44 ..
holdings 12 9 19 14 15 17 13
Nicaragua
area 0 0 2 4 8 20 66
holdings 53 10 12 7 6 7 5
Panama
area 1 1 3 4 7 18 67
holdings 10 10 20 22 22 10 7
Paraguay
area 0 0 1 2 3 4 90
holdings .. .. 70 15 7 5 3
Peru
area .. .. 5 5 4 8 78
holdings 63 18 15 3 1 0 ..
Saint Lucia
area 31 16 20 4 3 25 ..
holdings 73 15 10 2 1 0 ..
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
area 19 21 25 10 7 18 ..
holdings .. .. 11 12 12 16 49
Uruguay
area .. .. 0 0 1 2 97
holdings 9 14 26 15 12 10 14
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
area 0 0 1 2 2 5 89
holdings 22 13 23 18 14 9 2
Algeria
area 1 2 9 14 22 29 23
holdings 87 8 4 1 0 0 ..
Egypt
area 37 18 18 9 6 11 ..
holdings 47 12 18 11 7 3 1
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
area 2 4 13 18 21 21 20
holdings 54 32 7 4 2 0 0
Jordan
area 4 22 15 15 18 9 17
holdings 73 14 10 2 1 0 0
Lebanon
area 20 15 25 9 11 11 9
holdings 14 10 25 23 16 9 1
Libya
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 25 18 28 17 8 3 1
Morocco
area 2 5 17 22 22 17 15
holdings 73 11 9 7 .. .. ..
Yemen
area 16 10 18 56 .. .. ..
114 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A2 (cont.)
<1 ha 12 ha 25 ha 510 ha 1020 ha 2050 ha >50 ha
(Percentage)
South Asia
holdings 63 19 14 3 1 0 ..
India
area 19 20 31 17 8 5 ..
holdings 75 17 7 1 0 .. ..
Nepal
area 39 30 24 5 2 .. ..
holdings 36 22 28 9 4 1 0
Pakistan
area 6 10 28 19 16 12 10
Sub-Saharan Africa
holdings 13 19 41 21 5 .. ..
Burkina Faso
area 2 7 35 37 19 .. ..
holdings 42 14 19 13 8 3 ..
Cte dIvoire
area 5 5 15 22 27 25 ..
holdings 87 10 3 .. .. .. ..
Democratic Republic of the Congo
area 63 23 14 .. .. .. ..
holdings 63 24 12 1 0 .. ..
Ethiopia
area 27 33 33 6 1 .. ..
holdings 34 31 28 7 .. .. ..
Guinea
area 10 22 42 26 .. .. ..
holdings 70 18 10 2 0 .. ..
Guinea-Bissau
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 47 29 20 4 .. .. ..
Lesotho
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 78 17 5 .. .. .. ..
Malawi
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 54 30 14 2 0 0 0
Mozambique
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 14 25 49 11 1 0 0
Namibia
area 3 13 54 25 4 1 0
holdings 24 18 29 21 5 2 ..
Runion
area 2 5 20 30 15 29 ..
holdings 21 17 33 21 8 1 ..
Senegal
area 2 6 25 34 24 9 ..
holdings 49 24 17 6 4 .. ..
Uganda
area 11 16 25 18 30 .. ..
High-income countries
holdings .. 15 22 19 22 18 4
Austria
area .. 2 5 10 18 24 41
Statistic al annex
115
TABLE A2 (cont.)
<1 ha 12 ha 25 ha 510 ha 1020 ha 2050 ha >50 ha
(Percentage)
holdings 36 25 20 8 4 3 3
Bahamas
area 1 3 5 4 5 7 74
holdings 95 3 1 0 0 0 1
Barbados
area 10 3 3 1 2 3 78
holdings .. 17 14 13 16 27 12
Belgium
area .. 1 2 4 11 39 43
holdings .. 2 3 4 5 14 72
Canada
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 51 16 19 9 4 1 ..
Croatia
area 6 7 20 21 15 31 ..
holdings 55 17 16 6 3 2 1
Cyprus
area 6 7 14 13 14 16 30
holdings 29 15 17 11 9 8 10
Czech Republic
area 0 0 1 1 2 4 92
holdings .. 2 2 16 20 30 31
Denmark
area .. 0 0 3 6 21 70
holdings 20 20 24 16 11 6 3
Estonia
area 1 2 6 9 12 14 56
holdings .. 3 7 14 25 37 14
Finland
area .. 1 3 7 19 43 28
holdings .. 17 12 9 11 21 30
France
area .. 1 1 2 4 17 75
holdings 77 12 6 2 1 2 ..
French Polynesia
area 8 5 6 5 5 71 ..
holdings .. 8 17 16 19 24 17
Germany
area .. 0 2 4 8 22 63
holdings .. 49 28 13 6 3 1
Greece
area .. 11 21 20 19 18 10
holdings 30 16 27 16 7 5 ..
Guam
area 3 4 18 21 18 36 ..
holdings 27 13 19 11 14 10 6
Hungary
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings .. 2 6 12 24 39 17
Ireland
area .. 0 1 3 12 40 45
holdings 38 19 21 10 6 4 2
Italy
area 2 4 9 9 11 16 49
holdings 68 20 9 1 1 0 0
Japan
area 25 23 22 8 7 10 5
holdings .. 12 10 10 7 19 42
Luxembourg
area .. 0 1 2 3 15 79
116 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A2 (cont.)
<1 ha 12 ha 25 ha 510 ha 1020 ha 2050 ha >50 ha
(Percentage)
holdings 76 15 8 1 0 .. ..
Malta
area 33 25 29 10 3 .. ..
holdings .. 16 15 16 17 28 8
Netherlands
area .. 1 3 6 12 43 36
holdings .. .. 17 10 10 14 48
New Zealand
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 26 28 28 8 4 7 ..
Northern Mariana Islands
area 3 7 17 12 12 48 ..
holdings 2 4 15 24 32 22 2
Norway
area 0 0 4 12 31 43 10
holdings 33 18 21 15 9 3 1
Poland
area 3 5 13 18 21 16 25
holdings 27 28 24 10 6 3 2
Portugal
area 3 6 10 9 10 10 52
holdings .. .. 53 20 13 9 6
Puerto Rico
area .. .. 7 9 11 17 56
holdings 69 5 6 4 4 6 5
Qatar
area 1 1 2 2 5 16 73
holdings 59 31 10 .. .. .. ..
Republic of Korea
area 31 41 28 .. .. .. ..
holdings 70 12 10 2 1 1 3
Slovakia
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 28 13 23 18 13 5 ..
Slovenia
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings 26 15 22 13 10 8 7
Spain
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings .. 96 3 0 1 .. ..
Saint Kitts and Nevis
area .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
holdings .. 3 9 17 21 27 23
Sweden
area .. 2 4 9 14 25 47
holdings 20 7 11 14 29 18 1
Switzerland
area 1 1 3 9 36 43 7
holdings 35 18 34 9 3 1 0
Trinidad and Tobago
area 3 5 22 14 6 8 42
holdings .. 14 9 11 13 21 32
United Kingdom
area .. 0 1 1 3 10 85
holdings .. .. 11 10 14 22 44
United States of America
area .. .. 0 0 1 4 94
holdings .. 50 23 13 4 7 4
United States Virgin Islands
area .. 2 3 5 2 12 75
Statistic al annex
117
TABLE A3
Average level and rate of change in agricultural labour productivity, 19612012
LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES 405 412 416 419 490 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.9
LOWER-MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES 748 848 937 902 1057 2.0 0.7 1.4 0.5 2.3
UPPER-MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES 527 609 720 1003 1454 2.2 1.6 1.3 3.7 3.5
HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES 5556 8627 12211 18095 27112 4.7 4.2 3.2 4.5 3.7
WORLD 943 1059 1141 1261 1535 1.7 1.0 0.4 1.7 2.1
LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES 596 671 755 879 1144 1.9 1.0 1.2 2.2 2.8
East Asia and the Pacific 306 353 446 621 921 2.3 1.6 2.0 4.1 3.6
American Samoa 695 474 304 282 529 1.2 2.7 4.9 4.9 4.6
Cambodia 488 266 350 423 601 1.1 4.7 3.4 2.2 6.3
China, mainland 253 290 379 567 869 2.9 1.2 2.6 5.0 3.8
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea 512 736 918 946 1 131 2.1 4.3 1.9 1.3 0.9
Fiji 2068 1887 1984 1867 1696 0.7 1.7 0.1 1.4 1.3
Indonesia 426 530 665 783 1035 2.1 2.2 1.5 0.6 3.8
Kiribati 1647 1554 1694 1620 2189 0.8 1.8 2.3 2.4 3.6
Lao Peoples Democratic Republic 331 325 388 443 623 3.1 0.7 0.0 3.6 2.0
Malaysia 1315 2056 3202 4748 7827 4.4 3.7 5.1 3.1 5.2
Mongolia 2959 3326 3441 3318 3195 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 3.5
Myanmar 342 355 417 443 723 0.4 2.5 2.6 3.5 4.7
Palau .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Papua New Guinea 1046 1211 1220 1216 1258 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.4
Philippines 800 970 1036 1125 1380 0.8 3.1 0.0 0.6 2.4
Samoa 1646 1797 1989 1774 2551 0.6 1.9 1.4 3.5 3.4
Solomon Islands 725 780 829 726 772 0.3 2.6 3.4 0.7 2.3
Thailand 591 725 826 1052 1448 1.4 3.3 0.5 2.6 3.2
Timor-Leste 502 466 425 415 402 0.7 1.9 0.4 0.1 1.1
Tonga 2164 2316 2134 1914 2143 1.6 2.9 3.0 0.1 1.6
Tuvalu 651 609 644 753 857 1.6 6.6 0.9 0.2 1.5
Vanuatu 2004 2015 2131 1980 1799 0.1 2.7 1.1 0.2 1.7
Viet Nam 317 335 420 547 820 0.3 1.2 1.3 4.1 3.2
118 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A3 (cont.)
Agricultural labour productivity (value of agricultural production/agricultural worker)
Average annual level Average annual rate of change
(Constant 200406 international dollars) (Percentage)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
1971 1981 1991 2001 2012 1971 1981 1991 2001 2012
Europe and Central Asia 1928 2775 3366 3430 4697 5.1 2.2 2.0 0.1 4.1
Albania 574 715 736 1060 1592 1.9 2.2 1.4 4.9 4.5
Bulgaria 2216 4064 6852 10057 17858 7.9 5.9 4.0 6.2 7.0
Montenegro 4187 ..
Romania 1085 2023 3005 3720 7558 5.2 6.4 1.5 4.0 6.5
Serbia 5970 ..
Turkey 1562 2053 2328 2739 3789 2.5 3.0 0.4 2.5 4.2
Latin America and the Caribbean 2061 2486 3123 4032 5923 1.9 2.5 2.2 3.2 3.8
Antigua and Barbuda 1057 761 1112 1287 1221 7.6 2.5 2.7 0.6 0.7
Argentina 10709 14047 15802 18960 25970 2.8 4.0 0.1 3.2 3.0
Belize 2591 3685 4266 5609 5697 5.4 2.9 0.9 2.1 2.1
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 879 1144 1194 1362 1530 2.6 1.0 1.5 0.8 1.2
Brazil 1648 2155 3383 5252 9832 2.0 3.4 5.0 4.6 6.2
Chile 3111 3546 4031 5631 7526 2.6 2.0 1.4 3.4 2.4
Colombia 1622 1979 2296 2872 3524 1.7 2.2 3.1 1.2 2.0
Statistic al annex
119
TABLE A3 (cont.)
Agricultural labour productivity (value of agricultural production/agricultural worker)
Average annual level Average annual rate of change
(Constant 200406 international dollars) (Percentage)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
1971 1981 1991 2001 2012 1971 1981 1991 2001 2012
Costa Rica 2556 3796 4222 6327 7991 5.8 1.0 3.9 2.5 2.9
Cuba 3357 4128 5021 3921 4503 3.6 3.4 0.5 0.9 0.2
Dominica 2627 2771 4064 4552 4051 4.4 0.4 6.6 1.3 2.1
Dominican Republic 1990 2547 2788 3039 4907 0.5 2.2 0.6 2.9 5.6
Ecuador 2194 2279 2557 3616 4693 0.7 1.1 2.2 3.1 2.7
El Salvador 1130 1296 1223 1340 1606 0.6 2.0 0.0 0.9 3.1
Grenada 1678 1890 1874 1849 1536 5.6 2.2 0.3 1.8 2.2
Guatemala 910 1177 1207 1635 1873 2.1 2.4 0.5 4.0 1.9
Guyana 3518 3716 3338 5133 6078 1.0 0.0 1.9 4.9 1.1
Haiti 455 535 551 452 440 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.1
Honduras 1211 1419 1526 1710 2548 4.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 4.3
Jamaica 1578 1548 1481 2123 2443 2.2 2.4 2.9 1.8 1.2
Mexico 1656 2021 2390 2803 3797 3.0 2.0 0.5 2.9 2.6
Nicaragua 1794 2305 1747 1974 3540 4.3 0.1 2.5 4.7 5.5
Panama 2291 3119 3162 2901 3286 4.7 2.4 1.7 0.8 2.0
Paraguay 2239 2558 3303 3763 4744 0.7 2.4 3.5 0.3 3.9
Peru 1338 1349 1304 1401 2000 1.4 1.3 0.6 4.1 3.7
Saint Lucia 3396 3112 3603 3211 1337 1.8 1.5 4.5 9.9 5.1
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1821 1885 2492 2321 2023 0.0 0.6 3.7 4.3 0.3
Suriname 2242 3453 4375 3539 2923 5.5 5.9 2.4 3.6 1.2
Uruguay 8216 9214 10828 12825 17440 1.9 1.7 0.2 2.6 5.5
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 2491 3640 4560 5722 7756 4.6 4.0 1.1 3.6 2.7
Middle East and North Africa 1032 1284 1703 2359 2993 2.2 2.0 3.5 2.2 2.1
Algeria 978 1071 1323 1424 1726 1.4 0.5 2.8 1.4 4.0
Djibouti 195 178 242 192 244 1.4 0.7 1.7 0.1 2.6
Egypt 887 983 1233 2179 3051 1.7 0.7 5.0 4.3 2.8
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1054 1514 2102 3047 3622 3.4 3.2 2.4 2.1 1.3
Iraq 1349 1874 3179 4172 5385 2.5 4.5 4.6 4.2 2.0
Jordan 3066 2556 4590 5684 8886 8.7 7.5 3.5 1.3 4.1
Lebanon 2808 4647 10519 25410 35787 7.3 2.6 11.7 3.9 3.9
Libya 1144 2436 4585 8286 13778 8.0 6.5 6.7 4.8 6.3
Morocco 858 917 1222 1508 2319 3.6 1.0 6.5 1.1 5.1
Syrian Arab Republic 2122 3134 4069 4104 4820 0.8 8.2 3.3 3.1 1.1
120 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A3 (cont.)
Agricultural labour productivity (value of agricultural production/agricultural worker)
Average annual level Average annual rate of change
(Constant 200406 international dollars) (Percentage)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
1971 1981 1991 2001 2012 1971 1981 1991 2001 2012
Tunisia 1562 2361 2891 3671 4163 3.4 0.2 5.3 0.4 2.3
Yemen 422 500 547 545 717 1.3 2.4 1.1 1.4 3.4
South Asia 446 484 562 668 775 0.8 1.1 1.8 1.6 2.5
Afghanistan 736 775 791 694 603 1.4 1.0 0.5 1.3 0.1
Bangladesh 330 324 333 378 537 0.3 1.2 0.2 2.9 3.6
Bhutan 628 593 621 717 526 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.5 1.4
India 434 474 555 658 763 0.7 1.1 1.8 1.5 2.7
Maldives 317 399 519 511 442 2.3 2.6 0.1 0.2 1.1
Nepal 319 332 393 445 457 0.3 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.5
Pakistan 826 916 1133 1460 1477 2.4 0.3 4.2 1.0 0.4
Sri Lanka 555 586 619 608 654 0.5 2.2 1.9 0.5 1.9
Sub-Saharan Africa 566 583 581 626 696 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8
Angola 495 413 269 279 467 1.9 6.9 1.4 2.4 4.9
Benin 462 543 658 831 1046 1.9 1.7 2.0 3.9 1.4
Botswana 856 951 975 903 830 3.0 1.3 0.9 4.6 2.4
Burkina Faso 210 208 270 334 370 2.0 1.3 3.9 0.4 0.7
Burundi 452 453 413 350 282 0.8 0.4 0.5 2.5 2.8
Cameroon 518 649 687 755 1074 2.7 1.0 0.1 1.7 5.6
Cape Verde 362 306 541 825 1243 2.3 5.5 8.4 3.7 5.5
Central African Republic 398 481 502 584 708 2.0 1.3 0.5 2.7 1.7
Chad 585 502 458 463 477 0.9 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.3
Comoros 439 416 377 391 348 0.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.1
Congo 473 444 465 499 679 0.5 0.3 0.1 2.2 3.8
Cte dIvoire 981 1214 1334 1588 1959 2.3 2.4 0.9 3.1 2.1
Democratic Republic of the Congo 458 449 467 401 297 0.2 0.6 0.8 4.4 1.2
Gabon 490 633 835 1011 1244 2.1 3.5 2.7 1.5 3.0
Gambia 569 441 316 220 223 0.4 6.5 5.3 2.3 1
Ghana 808 723 615 841 1010 1.0 5.0 2.6 1.6 1.8
Guinea 401 409 398 400 444 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0
Guinea-Bissau 366 343 408 468 581 2.9 1.0 1.5 2.3 2.5
Statistic al annex
121
TABLE A3 (cont.)
Agricultural labour productivity (value of agricultural production/agricultural worker)
Average annual level Average annual rate of change
(Constant 200406 international dollars) (Percentage)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
1971 1981 1991 2001 2012 1971 1981 1991 2001 2012
Kenya 448 483 500 452 513 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.5 2.6
Lesotho 429 445 418 384 378 1.6 0.1 1.7 1.5 0.1
Liberia 527 597 565 456 480 2.4 0.5 2.3 4.1 1.7
Madagascar 652 649 596 519 446 0.6 1.0 0.8 2.0 0.2
Malawi 267 327 319 344 494 2.0 0.8 1.6 5.9 3.9
Mali 563 595 727 851 1088 1.9 2.6 2.1 1.5 3.1
Mauritania 682 603 680 675 632 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.9 0.7
Mauritius 2231 2291 2678 3621 5016 0.3 1.2 3.7 2.5 3.0
Mozambique 285 268 202 210 267 1.3 4.1 0.7 4.2 3.1
Namibia 2056 2343 1801 1638 1655 2.6 1.7 1.3 1.9 0.1
Niger 595 499 446 488 617 0.2 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.4
Nigeria 729 721 977 1793 2502 1.5 0.3 6.4 4.0 2.0
Rwanda 374 419 418 375 418 2.9 0.9 1.4 2.5 3.5
Sao Tome and Principe 1051 883 598 758 886 1.6 5.4 2.7 5.3 0.6
Senegal 530 416 370 337 328 3.0 2.2 0.0 0.4 1.7
Seychelles 375 285 255 258 172 0.7 2.9 1.7 1.3 3.5
Sierra Leone 351 389 389 374 617 2.4 0.3 0.0 1.7 8.0
Somalia 865 853 794 713 689 1.8 2.8 0.6 1.0 0.2
South Africa 2602 3849 4883 5688 8691 2.4 5.6 1.7 2.9 4.7
Sudan 699 828 822 1027 1285 1.7 1.2 0.3 3.2 0.3
Swaziland 988 1517 1941 1716 1953 4.4 4.0 0.2 1.3 2.1
Togo 501 461 458 548 586 0.4 0.2 1.1 1.9 1.3
Uganda 611 659 502 504 517 3.0 4.9 0.2 0.5 1.1
United Republic of Tanzania 359 372 375 334 411 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.6 2.1
Zambia 325 390 337 320 404 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.1 4.2
Zimbabwe 561 670 570 513 481 1.6 1.3 0.7 3.0 1.2
HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES 5556 8627 12211 18095 27112 4.7 4.2 3.2 4.5 3.7
Andorra .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Aruba .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Australia 25721 33684 36881 48040 51981 3.4 1.7 0.9 4.1 0.0
Austria 5390 9084 12743 17365 25584 6.4 4.7 1.9 4.7 3.8
Bahamas 1616 3490 3184 3956 5765 8.6 1.8 1.0 6.8 3.6
Bahrain 1938 3948 4437 6611 6756 3.6 8.8 4.9 4.5 1.6
Barbados 3545 4481 5362 6644 9319 3.4 4.8 1.2 3.3 3.6
122 THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2014
TABLE A3 (cont.)
Agricultural labour productivity (value of agricultural production/agricultural worker)
Average annual level Average annual rate of change
(Constant 200406 international dollars) (Percentage)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
1971 1981 1991 2001 2012 1971 1981 1991 2001 2012
Bermuda 2613 1728 1870 1942 1984 0.6 1.7 1.9 1.0 1.4
Brunei Darussalam 1027 2029 3984 13327 30608 4.5 6.2 2.3 19.5 2.7
Canada 13527 16925 26208 47408 68306 4.7 1.1 6.3 4.8 3.7
China, Hong Kong SAR .. 3998 4776 3790 5523 .. .. 1.3 5.1 1.2
Cyprus 2752 3512 5958 9559 11229 7.2 1.6 6.1 4.0 0.1
Denmark 13504 20015 29926 44715 69608 2.9 5.4 2.7 4.6 4.2
Equatorial Guinea 553 366 338 293 268 1.1 0.9 1.6 2.0 0.2
Faroe Islands 675 1701 1771 1875 1859 29.7 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.2
Finland 3720 5386 8008 11312 17191 3.3 4.3 3.2 3.8 3.4
France 8651 14776 23992 38045 57626 5.6 5.1 4.1 4.7 4.2
French Polynesia 1192 857 665 605 721 3.1 1.8 2.0 0.1 2.1
Germany 6538 10827 17267 24652 41180 7.5 3.3 5.0 5.0 5.0
Greece 2740 4642 6963 9557 11048 4.7 5.1 3.4 1.9 0.8
Greenland 957 905 1342 1257 1260 5.8 4.2 0.2 2.6 ..
Guam 313 404 398 425 512 2.4 3.6 2.0 3.3 0.4
Hungary 2975 5562 9036 10544 14689 5.8 6.0 3.3 3.8 1.8
Iceland 5701 7380 6845 6069 8419 0.3 3.7 4.1 2.3 3.0
Ireland 7035 12426 19236 26007 27945 5.8 5.4 4.5 1.5 1.0
Israel 9749 17752 25417 31466 48546 6.8 4.4 2.0 3.4 3.5
Italy 5208 8795 12807 20424 31185 6.9 5.0 2.8 5.0 3.6
Japan 1265 2381 3837 5619 10159 6.7 6.5 3.6 4.5 6.5
Kuwait 7120 6232 8620 10185 15137 2.4 0.1 1.1 18.2 1.5
Malta 4359 5643 10808 25729 37968 5.6 1.3 13.1 3.3 0.5
Monaco .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Netherlands 17006 29357 37734 42513 53204 6.9 3.8 0.5 0.9 4.1
Statistic al annex
123
TABLE A3 (cont.)
Agricultural labour productivity (value of agricultural production/agricultural worker)
Average annual level Average annual rate of change
(Constant 200406 international dollars) (Percentage)
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
1971 1981 1991 2001 2012 1971 1981 1991 2001 2012
New Caledonia 1125 815 681 664 698 1.9 3.9 2.6 0.6 0.2
New Zealand 37078 40502 41093 45780 53997 2.7 0.2 0.4 1.9 1.0
Norway 4729 6849 8726 10717 13379 4.6 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.3
Oman 410 550 765 828 1073 1.6 4.2 1.3 5.1 0.9
Poland 2076 2791 3307 3727 5192 2.0 3.1 2.2 2.4 3.5
Portugal 2498 2887 3582 5338 7140 3.3 1.3 6.0 2.8 3.2
Puerto Rico 5077 6677 8398 10075 17075 1.1 5.3 2.0 2.2 6.8
Qatar 1763 2210 3673 8148 7979 1.4 13.4 0.3 7.3 5.6
Republic of Korea 621 954 1726 3572 6640 3.5 5.4 7.4 7.3 5.8
San Marino .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Saudi Arabia 457 646 1578 3283 5712 2.0 3.3 12.7 5.5 5.0
Singapore 4924 13566 18956 12479 11452 10.7 6.1 2.3 8.0 5.6
Spain 3170 6050 10416 17341 26703 4.9 6.5 5.1 6.2 2.5
Sweden 6833 9687 12864 17030 22194 3.2 3.6 1.2 4.4 1.6
Switzerland 8593 11895 13495 13631 16786 3.7 3.2 0.8 1.7 2.4
Trinidad and Tobago 2773 3092 2641 2738 3092 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5
United Arab Emirates 3708 3607 3207 6838 5382 4.2 2.8 3.4 12.2 10.1
United Kingdom 14465 20049 25218 30203 32257 4.2 2.1 1.7 0.8 1.4
United States Virgin Islands 546 232 218 193 268 14.9 0.1 4.5 1.2 4.2
United States of America 23145 33130 38423 52615 74723 4.6 2.5 1.1 3.6 3.4
References
Special chapters of
The State of Food and Agriculture
127
References
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 8 5 3 6 3
I4040E/1/09.14