Et demain l'agriculture? : options techniques et mesures politiques pour un developpement agricole durable en Afrique subsaharienne : cas du Cercle de Koutiala en zone sud du Mali

Assessing progress towards healthier people, farms and landscapes through nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) requires transdisciplinary methods with robust models and metrics. Farm-household models could facilitate disentangling the complex agriculture-nutrition nexus, by jointly assessing performance indicators on different farm system components such as farm productivity, farm environmental performance, household nutrition, and livelihoods. We, therefore, applied a farm-household model, FarmDESIGN, expanded to more comprehensively capture household nutrition and production diversity, diet diversity, and nutrient adequacy metrics. We estimated the potential contribution of an NSA intervention targeting the diversification of home gardens, aimed at reducing nutritional gaps and improving livelihoods in rural Vietnam. We addressed three central questions: (1) Do ‘Selected Crops’ (i.e. crops identified in a participatory process) in the intervention contribute to satisfying household dietary requirements?; (2) Does the adoption of Selected Crops contribute to improving household livelihoods (i.e. does it increase leisure time for non-earning activities as well as the dispensable budget)?; and (3) Do the proposed nutrition-related metrics estimate the contribution of home-garden diversification towards satisfying household dietary requirements? Results indicate trade-offs between nutrition and dispensable budget, with limited farm-household configurations leading to jointly improved nutrition and livelihoods. FarmDESIGN facilitated testing the robustness and limitations of commonly used metrics to monitor progress towards NSA. Results indicate that most of the production diversity metrics performed poorly at predicting desirable nutritional outcomes in this modelling study. This study demonstrates that farm-household models can facilitate anticipating the effect (positive or negative) of agricultural interventions on nutrition and the environment, identifying complementary interventions for significant and positive results and helping to foresee the trade-offs that farm-households could face. Furthermore, FarmDESIGN could contribute to identifying agreed-upon and robust metrics for measuring nutritional outcomes at the farm-household level, to allow comparability between contexts and NSA interventions.

A salient theme in D. Gale Johnson’s work is the importance of agricultural development for general prosperity and for economic diversification (e.g., Johnson 2000). Johnson has also noted that most of the world’s poor are engaged in farming, so that a key focus of development policy is to raise the incomes of farmers. From a global perspective, increasing the productivity of agriculture, given the fixity of land, is necessary for both poverty reduction and the development of the nonagricultural sector. At the level of the world, agricultural productivity gains, poverty reduction, and the growth of the nonfarm sector are complements. However, the question remains whether these observations imply that every poor country should focus its public resources on agricultural development in order to raise the incomes of people now engaged in farming and whether such a policy is necessary for obtaining economic diversity. In this article, we use the experience of India over the past 30 years to address the issue of whether agricultural technical change actually leads to economic diversification and income growth within the rural sector in the context of an open-economy country in which there are cross-area trade and capital flows. We focus in particular on the rural sector because this is the sector in which linkages between agricultural and nonagricultural sectors are thought to be the strongest. We exploit the fact that India has maintained a policy of openness with respect to agricultural technology over this period, permitting and actively supporting agricultural development, and has moved to a reformed regime in which goods are traded and capital is more mobile in the 1990s. Evidence on the relationship between agricultural growth and nonfarm

Effects of CAP policy on farm household behaviour and social sustainability

This report presents a farm household model for use in the context of developing countries to gain knowledge on food security and rural poverty alleviation under different economic conditions and agri-food policy options. This model, called FSSIM-Dev (Farming System Simulator for Developing Countries), is an extension of the FSSIM model developed within the SEAMLESS project for impact assessment of agricultural and environmental policies on farm performances across Europe.\nFSSIM-Dev is conceived to be applied for family agriculture where farm household production, consumption and labour allocation decisions are non-separable due to market imperfections. Contrary to most well-known household models which are econometric-based, FSSIM-Dev is a non-linear optimization model which simultaneously solves a set of microeconomic models reproducing the behaviour of representative farm households. \nFSIM-Dev is designed to capture five key features of developing countries' agriculture: non-separability of production and consumption decisions; interaction among farm households for market factors; heterogeneity of farm households with respect to their both consumption baskets and resource endowments; inter-linkage between transaction costs and market participation decisions; and the seasonality of farming activities and resource use. \nModel use is illustrated in this report with an analysis of the combined effects of rice support policy and improved rice cropping management on the livelihood of representative farm households in Sierra Leone.Results show that both the rice support policy and the improved crop management would significantly increase rice productivity and boost household income but they are not sufficient to fight poverty since most of the farm household types would continue to live below the extreme poverty line of 1 USD-equivalent per day.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate determinants of regional disparities in China's agricultural labor productivity growth.Design/methodology/approachThis paper first decomposes the regional disparity in China's agricultural productivity growth into its components: technical change, efficiency change and input accumulation per worker. The convergence test is also used to analyze the determinants of regional disparity.FindingsThe paper finds that during 1987 and 2005, although the growth of China's agricultural labor productivity mainly depended on the accumulation of inputs, technical changes contributed more to regional disparities in agricultural productivity growth.Originality/valueThis paper, which studies the determinants of regional disparities in China's agricultural labor productivity growth, contributes to a better understanding of China's agricultural growth and how to reduce the regional inequality. It is indicated that improving efficiency to promote total factor productivity growth is important for agricultural labor productivity growth for the three regions – Eastern, Central and Western – of China. The increase in inputs for Western China, and the improvement in technical change for Central and Western China are significant aspects to promote the growth of agricultural productivity and narrow the gap with Eastern China.

The article examines the impact of labor productivity on the development of agriculture. It was established that labor productivity is the main lever for creating additional value and a source of economic growth of agricultural production. An assessment of the achieved level of labor productivity in the agriculture of Ukraine was carried out on the basis of economic and statistical analysis. The monitoring of wage dynamics as the main socioeconomic factor of increasing the productivity of agricultural labor was carried out. A comparative analysis of the rate of increase in labor productivity and the rate of growth of its payment was done. The obtained results made it possible to reveal the presence of disproportions in the agrarian sphere of Ukraine between these indicators. A comparative assessment of the level of labor productivity in domestic agriculture and EU countries proved that the rate of growth of agricultural labor productivity in Ukraine is significantly behind the average European indicators. A set of socio-economic motivators for increasing labor productivity in agricultural production is substantiated on the basis of the research results. It was established that remuneration systems for hired labor remain the main socioeconomic factor stimulating the growth of labor productivity in agrarian business. At the same time, a set of socio-economic motivators, which, in addition to wages, can be effective in stimulating the growth of agricultural labor productivity has been determined. Among the key motivators, the following ones are proposed for use in the modern HR policy of agrarian formations: opportunities for professional development of personnel, opportunities for employees to influence making important management decisions, increasing the prestige of agricultural work, appreciation and self-realization of workers. It was determined that the principles of sustainable development and the elimination of inclusive gaps in the industry should be an important prerequisite for increasing labor productivity in the agricultural economy of Ukraine.

Farm household models to analyse food security in a changing climate: A review

The resulting output target is the Karang Kitri Fish Cultivation Group (Pokdakan), East Landasan Ulin Village, Landasan Ulin District, Banjarbaru City in increasing production of 200 kg / day and quality according to independent feed standards. The solutions offered so that Pokdakan Karang Kitri can increase production and feed quality independently and sustainably are introducing (extension) independent and sustainable feed production and quality techniques and training and demonstration (practice) independent and sustainable production techniques and feed quality. The approach method used is empowerment using stages/steps (preparation, implementation and evaluation); The service activities and stages are detailed as follows: preparation of input materials and tools for the manufacture of fish feed and fish rearing, including: preparation of raw materials for making fish feed, preparation of tools and materials for making fish feed, and preparation of other materials and infrastructure, the process of making feed fish; dispersal of fish seeds into cultivation containers for trial feeding, provision of fish feed to cultured fish, harvesting and evaluation of fish growth and feed manufacturing technology. evaluation and monitoring as well as assistance. The form of evaluation is carried out through evaluation of knowledge and skills (t test) and evaluation of economic value analysis. Results of Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis Testing t-test; t-stat is the t-count value that is equal to 27.61448592. P(T<=t) one tail is a p-value of 4.67292E-27. t critical one tail is the value of t table which is 1.68595446 , or increased from 16% to 70.75% . The results from the manufacture of fish feed are able to produce with a capacity of more than 200 kg/one production and get a price of Rp. 5,450/kg with a feed protein range of 30%. Keywords: production; quality; feed; independent; pokdakan

Shenggen FanInternational Food Policy Research Institute and Institute of AgriculturalEconomics of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesLinxiu ZhangCenter for Chinese Agricultural Policy of the Chinese Academy of SciencesXiaobo ZhangInternational Food Policy Research InstituteI. IntroductionChina is one of the few countries in the developing world that has madeprogress in reducing its total number of poor over the past 25 years.

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of input subsidies on agricultural productivity, beneficiary incomes and welfare, consumer welfare and wider economic growth. The review summarizes evidence from 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 studies that use computable models, the majority concerning sub‐Saharan Africa. This review examines studies that evaluate the impact of agricultural input subsidies, including subsidies for agricultural machinery, seeds or fertilisers, on farmers, farm households, wage labourers or food consumers in low‐ or lower‐ middle‐income countries. It includes 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 simulation modelling studies. The majority relate to sub‐Saharan Africa (15 to Malawi) and to subsidised fertilizers and seeds. Fertiliser and seed subsidies are associated with increased use of these inputs, higher agricultural yields and increased income among farm households, but evidence of their effects on poverty is limited. There is much evidence that subsidy schemes are prone to inefficiency, bias and corruption. Models show that introducing or increasing subsidies generally results in positive effects for consumers and wider economic growth. However, the models indicate that the way subsidies are funded, world input prices and beneficiary targeting all have important influences on predicted outcomes. The authors were not able to find any studies examining subsidies for machinery. Plain language summary Agricultural input subsidies raise input use, yields and farm income. The review in brief Agricultural input subsidies raise input use, yields and farm income, but the evidence base is small and comes from a limited number of schemes and countries. What is this review about? Greater use of improved seeds and inorganic fertilisers, and increased mechanisation, could boost agricultural productivity in some low‐ or lower‐middle‐income countries, but there is disagreement about whether subsidising these inputs is an effective way to stimulate their use. This review examines the evidence for impacts of input subsidies on agricultural productivity, beneficiary incomes and welfare, consumer welfare and wider economic growth. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of input subsidies on agricultural productivity, beneficiary incomes and welfare, consumer welfare and wider economic growth. The review summarizes evidence from 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 studies that use computable models, the majority concerning sub‐Saharan Africa. What are the main findings of this review? What studies are included? This review examines studies that evaluate the impact of agricultural input subsidies, including subsidies for agricultural machinery, seeds or fertilisers, on farmers, farm households, wage labourers or food consumers in low‐ or lower‐ middle‐income countries. It includes 15 experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and 16 simulation modelling studies. The majority relate to sub‐Saharan Africa (15 to Malawi) and to subsidised fertilizers and seeds. What are the main results of this review? Fertiliser and seed subsidies are associated with increased use of these inputs, higher agricultural yields and increased income among farm households, but evidence of their effects on poverty is limited. There is much evidence that subsidy schemes are prone to inefficiency, bias and corruption. Models show that introducing or increasing subsidies generally results in positive effects for consumers and wider economic growth. However, the models indicate that the way subsidies are funded, world input prices and beneficiary targeting all have important influences on predicted outcomes. The authors were not able to find any studies examining subsidies for machinery. What do the findings of this review mean? Input subsidies can increase input use, and raise agricultural productivity with wider benefits. However, the design of subsidy schemes is crucial to their effectiveness, if they are to reach the desired farmers and stimulate input use. The effectiveness of subsidies in comparison to other interventions requires further study. A relatively small number of appropriate studies were found, and well‐documented research in countries beyond sub‐Saharan Africa is needed to ensure the wider relevance of these results. Mixed‐methods, theory‐based impact evaluations would help explore the impacts of different levels of subsidies for different beneficiaries. Simulation models studies could make more use of rigorous evidence from experimental and quasi‐experimental studies and examine more helpful subsidy comparisons. More clarity is needed in the reporting of methodological approaches, statistical information and the type and size of input subsidy implemented or modelled. How up‐to‐date is this review? The review authors searched for studies up to 2013. This Campbell systematic review was published in 2018. Executive summary/Abstract Background In recent decades, agricultural productivity in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries, particularly in Africa, has fallen increasingly behind that of upper middle‐income countries. Adequate use of agricultural inputs such as improved seeds and inorganic fertilisers has been identified as one way of enhancing agricultural productivity. However, these inputs can be financially unaffordable or unattractive to many poor farmers in developing countries. Agricultural input subsidies aim to make inputs available to users at below market costs as a way of incentivising adoption, increasing agricultural productivity and profitability, increasing food availability and access and ultimately reducing poverty and stimulating economic growth. They were common in poor rural economies in the 1960s and 70s. Their use declined in the 1980s and 90s, but recent years have witnessed a resurgence of interest and investment, mainly in Africa. There remains considerable debate about the effectiveness and efficiency of their use and the conditions under which they may or may not work. Objectives This systematic review explores the effects of agricultural input subsidies on agricultural productivity, farm incomes, consumer welfare and wider growth in low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries. This research question is divided into the following primary and secondary research questions: What are the effects of agricultural input subsidies on agricultural productivity and beneficiary incomes and welfare? What are the effects of agricultural input subsidies on consumer welfare and wider economic growth? Search methods We carried out a systematic search for includable studies in a wide range of sources and using a variety of search methods. We searched academic and online databases, carried out forwards and backwards citation tracking of included studies, and consulted experts. There were no restrictions on publication year, type or language, though searches were undertaken in English. The main searches were completed in November 2013. However, we incorporated additional papers after this date where they became available before our analysis was completed. Selection criteria To be included, studies had to examine the effects of agricultural input subsidies, including products, machinery, seeds or fertilisers, on farmers, farm households, wage labourers or food consumers in low‐ or lower‐ middle‐income countries. Eligible comparisons included no active agricultural input subsidy intervention, wait‐list, alternate input subsidy intervention, or other interventions providing access to inputs. We included experimental or quasi‐experimental studies to address our primary research question regarding primary outcomes of adoption, productivity and farm income. We included econometric modelling studies to address our secondary research question on consumer welfare and wider economic growth outcomes. Studies were assessed by a single reviewer at both title and abstract level and full‐text level. A second reviewer then checked screening decisions taken at full‐text level. Data collection and analysis We extracted a range of data including bibliographic details, outcomes, time period covered, study design and outcomes data. For our primary research questions we synthesised evidence from experimental and quasi‐experimental studies using meta‐analysis, meta‐regression analysis and a qualitative synthesis of relevant implementation and contextual factors. For our secondary research questions we synthesised evidence from modelling studies narratively and displayed effects in scatter plots where possible. Results We identified 15 experimental

Agrarian policies for sustainable land use: bio-economic modelling to assess the effectiveness of policy instruments

The farm household model, in which decisions about production and consumption are made simultaneously, lies at the heart of many models of development. Empirically modelling these simultaneous choices is not straightforward. The vast majority of empirical studies assume that farm households behave as if markets are complete in which case decision-making simplifies to a recursive system where consumption choices can be treated as if they are made after all production decisions. Previous empirical tests of this assumption have relied on restrictions on production decisions. We develop a new approach to testing based on household consumption choices and implement the procedure using data from rural Indonesia. Relative to production-side tests, the consumption-based test is well-suited to identifying those farm households in any setting whose behavior is consistent with complete markets and those for whom the assumption is rejected. We find the recursion assumption is not rejected for larger farmers but is rejected for small farmers. The tests are straightforward to implement and the results of the tests provide new opportunities to identify the behaviors that households adopt in the face of incomplete markets.

Despite the importance of location-specific adaptive crop breeding research, past reforms of breeding systems in Nigeria have focused more on centralizing the breeding activities into fewer locations. This has been based partly on the premise that such research systems can still effectively meet the need for a diverse set of varietal technologies that are suitable for different agroecological conditions through the use of numerous outstations and multilocational trials, regardless of the locations of the headquarters or the outstations where breeders are located. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this premise. Using panel data for agricultural households in northern Nigeria, as well as spatial data on agroecological factors, this study fills this knowledge gap. Specifically, it empirically shows that agricultural productivity and technical efficiency at farm household level is significantly and positively affected by similarity between the agroecological conditions of the locations of these households and where major crop breeding institutes are headquartered in Nigeria, namely Maiduguri, Kano, Zaria, Badeggi, Ibadan, and Umudike, after controlling for the agroecological conditions and various relevant household characteristics of these households. These findings suggest that where improved varieties are developed or evaluated affects agricultural productivity and technical efficiency in different locations. Overall agricultural productivity in Nigeria can be significantly increased not simply by increasing support for public sector varietal development, but by doing so in a manner that increases the similarity in agroecological conditions between areas where crop breeding is conducted and the areas where farm households produce those crops.

Small irrigation schemes have become very popular in many African countries as a policy measure to boost agriculture and farm income given their relatively low capital investment compared with to large irrigation infrastructures and the shorter time required for the project design and implementation. This paper attempts to explore the likely impacts of a program of small irrigation development in Niger on land allocation, agricultural production, food security and poverty reduction on a nationally representative sample of farm households. A farm-household model, named FSSIM-Dev (Farm System Simulator for Developing Countries), is used to achieve this objective. This static positive programming model was applied to every individual farm household included in the 2011-2012 LSMS-ISA survey sample – around 2300 farm households – in order to guarantee the highest representativeness of the farming systems and to capture the full heterogeneity across farm households. Results show that irrigation has a large impact on agriculture production and income of smallholder farmers, mainly during the dry season and in the regions with high potential irrigable land. Farm income would increase by around 7 % at country level if small irrigation was made available to all farmers. At the regional and individual farm levels the impact is more pronounced (reaching more than 80 % in one region). Additionally, the income impacts are larger for those households with the lowest agricultural income in the baseline, showing the large potential impacts of small irrigation in terms of poverty and inequality reduction.

Access to finance to the rural households is a powerful intervention to facilitate the adoption of farm inputs and boost agricultural productivity in developing countries like Ethiopia. Credit constraints limit the ability of households to use inputs at optimal level and thereby stifles agricultural productivity. However, evaluation of the impact of credit constraints on agricultural technology adoption and productivity have faced methodological problems and most of the existing studies have failed to explicitly measure and analyze the amount of productivity loss and the magnitude increase in intensity of fertilizer adoption if the farm households are found credit unconstrained. This study has examined the possible effect of credit constraint on the intensity of fertilizer adoption and productivity among households who vary in their credit constraint status. The study used cross sectional farm household level data collected in 2013 from 1165 randomly sampled households. An endogenous switching regression model is used for analytical purpose so as to account for selection bias and heterogeneity problem. The result evidence that intensity of fertilizer adoption and agriculture productivity would be higher among farm households who are found to be credit unconstrained. The result revealed that factors that affect the intensity of fertilizer adoption and agriculture productivity among credit constrained farm households are different from their counterparts. Age and age square of the household head, primary cooperative membership, number of Oxen, ownership of TV, hired labor as dummy and use of manure have significant effect on the intensity of fertilizer adoption among credit unconstrained regimes. Whereas, household size, altitude of land, ownership of land, way of land cultivation, and being risk averse household have significant effect on the intensity of fertilizer adoption in the credit constrained regimes. The result shown that size of land has negative and significant effect on the intensity of fertilizer adoption in the constrained regime while it has positive and significant effect on the intensity of adoption in the unconstrained regime. Age and age square of the household head, TLU, hired labor as dummy are the factors that significantly affect the productivity in the unconstrained regimes. The number of oxen and distance of farm land from residence also affect the productivity. Land size has found the significant and negative effect on the productivity in the constrained regime, but it has the positive and significant effect in the credit constrained regime. The policy implication is that the policy makers should account the credit constraint heterogeneity among farm households when they design agricultural policy to increase intensity of fertilizer adoption and thereby boost productivity of agriculture.