International Agricultural Development Research Articles

Getting the focus right: production constraints for six major food crops in Asian and African farming systems

To determine the most important production constraints and associated yield losses for six major food crops in 13 farming systems with high poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and East Asia, surveys were conducted with 672 experts representing a diversity of backgrounds and experience. Respondents reported large gaps between highest achieved crop yield on smallholder farms and average yield on farm. Yield gaps were smallest for rice (about 60% of current average smallholder farm grain yields), mid size for wheat and cassava, and larger (sometimes double current farm yields) for sorghum, cowpea and chickpea. Gaps were also smaller in the high input and yield farming systems of East Asia and largest in the marginal, drier systems, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Four categories of production constraint (abiotic, biotic, management and socio-economic) were considered important contributors to yield gaps. A diversity of specific constraints was reported for the crops in the different systems. The most severe and widespread specific constraints for wheat involved the deficiency, high cost and poor management of N fertilizer, and problems associated with drought stress at grain filling, mid season drought and irrigation management. Those for rice included N fertilizer problems, soil fertility depletion, various leaf, stem and head pests and diseases, weed competition and inadequate water management. Striga and weed competition, soil resource degradation, poor soil fertility management, and drought were the most severe specific constraints for sorghum. Insect pests of pod, leaf, stem and flower and the high cost of their control dominated the constraint set for cowpea. Helicoverpa pod borer, Botrytis grey mould and control costs were the most severe for chickpea. Unsuitable varieties/poor seed, soil infertility and fertilizer constraints were also widespread with the legumes. Marketing problems and lack of finance were concerns for cassava along with weed competition, African cassava mosaic virus and poor varieties/planting materials. The findings can help to inform priority setting for international agricultural research and development activities on important food crops in major farming systems occupying areas of high poverty.

Agricultural and Rural Development in China: Achievements and Challenges Entwicklung der Landwirtschaft und des ländlichen Raums in China: Erfolge und Herausforderungen Le développement agricole et rural en Chine : résultats et défis

SummaryAgricultural and Rural Development in China: Achievements and ChallengesChina has made great advances in its agricultural and rural development since the reforms and opening‐up that began in 1978. It has not only fed its population of 1.3 billion, but has also contributed to international agricultural development and food security. Agricultural production registered great development, providing sufficient food and clothes for 21 per cent of the world’s population with 9 per cent of the arable land. In the process farmers’ living standards improved remarkably and rural public utilities and services were greatly enhanced. China is now in a key transition period of accelerating the transformation and modernisation of traditional agriculture and rural society. It is facing significant challenges. Agriculture is still one of the weakest industries in China and it is proving difficult to sustain increases in grain output and farmers’ incomes. The problems of uneven development in rural areas have become increasingly prominent and the gap between urban and rural development is tending to widen. The Chinese government will respond strategically to these challenges and will firmly pursue the construction of a new efficient and sustainable socialist countryside, along the path of modernisation with Chinese characteristics. It will also make greater contributions to world agriculture and rural development.

The Value of Focus Group Discussions for Understanding Barriers to Agriculture-Tourism Linkages in Developing Regions

The value of focus group research is becoming more evident throughout the social sciences, as academicians and practitioners alike search for better ways to investigate and analyze human interactions, beliefs and attitudes in all kinds of business and social situations and contexts. The study of international agricultural development is no exception to this trend. In particular, as agriculture in developing countries evolves and as markets in those countries become affected by industrialization, focus groups provide a credible way for researchers to examine barriers as well as new possibilities regarding relationships between agriculture and new industries. This article demonstrates how focus groups were used to gather information in the U.S. Virgin Islands that helped stakeholders to identify and characterize barriers to developing a stronger relationship between the agriculture industry and the tourism and hospitality industry. The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Carlos Robles and Mr. Dale Morton who organized and conducted the focus group meetings.

BIOENGINEERED CROPS AS TOOLS FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

SUMMARYCrop bioengineering provides unique and dramatic opportunities for international agricultural development. However, we consider the technology not as a ‘silver bullet’ or panacea for crop improvement in the developing world but as an increasingly important tool that can be used to complement conventional methods of crop improvement. The number of bioengineered crops ready for commercial release in developing countries is expected to expand considerably in the next few years. But the multi-national life sciences companies that are leading the research, development and commercialization of bioengineered crops focus primarily on major crops that have high commercial value and extensive international markets. These companies also hold proprietary gene technology for many other crops of extreme importance to subsistence and resource-poor farmers but do not pursue product development and commercialization because of low anticipated returns. Such crops have traditionally been overlooked and are sometimes referred to as ‘orphan crops’ because of the relative lack of research and development applied to them. We propose a strategy for the development and delivery of bioengineered crops, including orphan crops, for developing countries. Consulting local public and private sector stakeholders to determine their highest priority needs for agricultural products is the first step. This ensures local stakeholder buy-in and that we do not invest in technology that is unlikely to be adopted. Next, the feasibility of developing and delivering the product is assessed. If the result is positive, the work is organized into ‘product commercialization packages’ (PCPs) that integrate all elements of the research, development and commercialization processes. The main elements of each PCP include (i) technology development; (ii) policy-related issues such as intellectual property and licensing, as well as gaining regulatory approval by the relevant national authorities; (iii) providing public information to producers and consumers about the benefits, risks and correct management of these new products; and (iv) establishing, or verifying, the existence of marketing and distribution mechanisms to provide farmers access to planting material. Our strategy involves integration of needs-based capacity building, socio-economic impact studies and product stewardship into each PCP. Whenever appropriate, opportunities are sought to create public–private partnerships to help leverage public funds, help absorb development costs and provide a broader distribution channel. To illustrate how our strategy is being translated into action we include, as a case study, examples of work by the US Agency for International Development-funded, Cornell University-led Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II on the research, development and delivery of bioengineered fruit and shoot-borer-resistant eggplant varieties (Solanum melanogena) for South and Southeast Asia.

Strategic approaches to targeting technology generation: Assessing the coincidence of poverty and drought-prone crop production

The world’s poorest and most vulnerable farmers on the whole have not benefited from international agricultural research and development. Past efforts have tried to increase the production of countries in more favourable environments; farmers with relatively higher potential for improvement benefited most from these advances. Current and future crop improvement efforts will focus more on marginal environments, especially those prone to drought. The objective of this research is to guide crop improvement efforts by prioritizing areas of high poverty, the key problem of high drought risk and the crops grown and consumed in these areas. Global spatial data on crop production, climate and poverty (as proxied by child stunting) were used to identify geographic areas of high priority for crop improvement. The analysis employed spatial overlay, drought modelling and descriptive statistics to identify where best to target technology generation to achieve its intended human welfare goals. Analysis showed that drought coincides with high levels of poverty in 15 major farming systems, especially in South Asia, the Sahel and eastern and southern Africa, where high diversity in drought frequency characterizes the environments. Thirteen crops make up the bulk of food production in these areas. A database was developed for use in agricultural research and development targeting and priority setting to raise the productivity of crops on which the poor in marginal environments depend.

AGENDA 21 AND ITS EMPHASIS ON AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Since the 1979 World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD) and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment Development, which generated the Agenda 21 document, international agricultural development organizations have been urged to strengthen their focus toward the sustainable development of the small-scale, resource poor farmer. This paper aims is to investigate at the small-scale, the resources of a modest farmer's ongoing level of participation, rate of adoption of agricultural technology, and the sustainable benefits of the implemented projects within the documents of several international agricultural development organizations to determine if the farmers can positively impact the forecasted. To accomplish this, the methodology utilized is the method of exploratory literature review. International agricultural development is a non-formal, primarily agricultural education service for rural people. Characteristic services of agricultural extension generally include: communication of agricultural research findings and recommendations; dissemination of useful information through organized action; identification of client need and possible solutions, and teaching people to help them (i.e. how to improve their quality of life, income, farming practices, etc.). Having these, the results of this paper suggested that the impending need for improved global agricultural production may not be met due to the low amount of evidence in the implemented project reports of adoption of the technology, and the inadequate reporting of benefits essential to the smallscale, resource modest farmer.

Strengthening the International Agricultural Development Cooperation System in Korea

Strengthening the International Agricultural Development Cooperation System in Korea

Trends and Challenges of eLearning in National and International Agricultural Development

Compared to other business and management fields, elearning in agriculture-related fields is still in the early phases of adoption. Early pioneers, primarily American and Australian agribusinesses and colleges of agriculture, are now utilizing elearning methods as a major part of both their education and strategic management programs. There are plenty of challenges, involving the faculty and trainers, students and farmers, technology, finances, and other complications, but agricultural instructors absolutely must find ways to overcome these hindrances and aspire toward the plethora of opportunities that elearning presents for the field of agriculture. eLearning is dramatically improving how agricultural education is done. It is allowing greater access to more students, more efficiently, and better information. The evaluation results of the first international elearning projects in agriculture show that much good can be done toward ensuring food security in the world if developed countries assist developing countries to implement elearning methods. This paper explains the major trends in elearning in agriculture, and the challenges of elearning in agriculture. It describes the major developments and uses of elearning in the field of agriculture and investigates the international opportunities with elearning in agriculture.

Book Reviews

Development and ChangeVolume 31, Issue 4 p. 911-926 Book Reviews First published: 28 June 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00182AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Books reviewed: Bent Flyvberg, Rationality and Power. Democracy in Practice A. de Tinguy, (ed.)The Fall of the Soviet Empire Peter Godwin, (ed.)The Looming Epidemic: The Impact of HIV and AIDS in India Alejandro Portes, Carlos Dore-Cabral and Patricia Landolt, (eds)The Urban Caribbean. Transition to the New Global Economy Elsa Leo-Rhynie, Barbara Bailey and Christine Barrow, (eds) Gender: A Caribbean Multi-Disciplinary Perspective Nalinin Visvanathan, Lynn Duggan, Laurie Nisonoff and Nan Wiegersma, (eds)The Women, Gender and Development Reader Doreen Indra, (ed.) Engendering Forced Migration: Theory and Practice. S. M. Charlton and J. Everett, (eds) NGOs and Grassroots in Development Work in South India: Elizabeth Moen Mathiot Ruddar Datt, (ed.) Organising the Unorganised Workers A. Dorward, J. Kydd and C. Poulton, (eds)Smallholder Cash Crop Production under Market Liberalisation. A New Institutional Economics Perspective Deepak Nayyar, (ed.) Trade and Industrialization J. Leckie, To Labour with the State. The Fiji Public Service Association Carl K. Eicher and John M. Staatz, (eds) International Agricultural Development Volume31, Issue4September 2000Pages 911-926 RelatedInformation

International agricultural development

Contents:PrefacePart I - The Challenge IntroductionAgricultural Development Ideas in Historical PerspectiveJohn M. Staatz and Carl K. EicherAgricultural and Foods Needs to 2025Alex F. McCallaForeign Aid and Agriculture-Led DevelopmentJohn W. MellorPart II - Historical and Theoretical Perspectives IntroductionEconomic Performance through TimeDouglass C. NorthCommunity, Market, and StateYujiro HayamiMarkets, Market Failures, and DevelopmentJoseph E. StiglitzThe Agricultural TransformationC. Peter TimmerAgriculture on the Road to IndustrializationJohn W. MellorModels of Agricultural DevelopmentVernon W. RuttanInduced Innovation Model of Agricultural DevelopmentVernon W. Ruttan and Yujiro HayamiPart III - Policy Perspectives IntroductionThe Macroeconomics of Food and AgricultureC. Peter TimmerThe Case for Trade LiberalizationRudiger DornbuschThe Plundering of Agriculture in Developing CountriesMaurice Schiff and Alberto ValdesThe Political Framework for Agricultural Policy DecisionsRobert H. BatesFood, Economics, and EntitlementsAnartya SenPart IV - Agricultural Transformation and Rural Economic Development IntroductionLearning from ExperienceAgricultural Development: Transforming Human Capital, Technology, and InstitutionsJames T. BonnenAgricultural and Rural Development: Painful Lessons Hans P. BinswangerThe Peasant in Economic ModernizationYujiro HayamiInstitutional and Human CapitalReflections on Land Reform and Farm SizeHans P. Binswanger and Miranda ElginInvesting in PeopleTheodore W. SchultzProjects for Women: Explaining Their Misbehavior Mayra Buvini Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-first CenturyCharles H. AntholtHow Do Market Failures Justify Interventions in Rural Credit Markets?Timothy J. BesleyMicrofinance: The Paradigm Shift form Credit Delivery to Sustainable Financial IntermediationMarguerite S. RobinsonMicro and Small Enterprises and the Rural PoorCarl LiedholmTechnology Development and SustainabilityConstraints on the Design of Sustainable Systems of Agricultural ProductionVernon W. RuttanAfrican Agriculture: Productivity and Sustainability IssuesThomas ReardonMaintaining Productivity Gains in Post- Green Revolution Asian AgricultureMichael Morris and Derek ByerleeConfronting the Ecological Consequences of the Rice Green Revolution in Tropical AsiaPrabhu L. PingaliChoice of Technique in Rice Milling on JavaC. Peter Timmer, with a comment by William L. Collier, Jusuf Colter, Sinarhadi, and Robert d'A. Shaw and a reply by C. Peter TimmerPast V - Lessons from Economies in Transition IntroductionAgricultural Development and Reform in ChinaJustin Yifu LinThe Role of Agriculture in Indonesia's DevelopmentC. Peter TimmerZimbabwe's Maize Revoluion: Insights for Closing Africa's Food Gap.Carl K. Eicher and Bernard KupfumaPath-dependent Policy Reforms: From Land Reform to Rural Development in ColumbiaAlain de Janvry and Elizabeth SadouletAgricultrual Reform in Central and Eastern EuropeJohan F.M. SwinnenName IndexSubject Index

An analysis of agricultural price and research policies in Chile

The interactions between agricultural price and research policies are formally addressed in this article in order to avoid biased estimates of the benefits to Chile from indigenous and international agricultural research and development. Government pricing policies influenced the innovative behavior of the main Chilean public research institution and reduced the benefits from cost-reducing research benefits relative to those obtained under free trade conditions. Despite the existence of market distortions caused by commodity price policies, Chilean welfare gains from public agricultural research were positive. However, these net economic surplus changes would have been higher if output price interventions would have been aimed at reducing distortions and putting producer prices more in line with international prices.

Historical Perspectives on Technical Cooperation in Relation to International Agricultural Development

Historical Perspectives on Technical Cooperation in Relation to International Agricultural Development

Indigenous Knowledge and Classification of Soils in the Andes of Southern Peru

AbstractIndigenous cultures throughout the world have substantial, systematic knowledge of soils gained during many generations of land use; however, little of this knowledge has been scientifically documented. Recent literature indicates that knowledge among traditional cultures could add to scientific understanding of soils and be useful in international agricultural development. This study investigated indigenous soil knowledge in the Colca Valley, Peru, where terrace agriculture has been practiced for at least 15 centuries. Previous research suggested enhanced tilth and fertility of ancient agricultural soils, measured by criteria such as thickened A horizons, lower bulk density, and greater levels of organic C, N, and P relative to nearby uncultivated Mollisols. Long‐term soil conservation is partly attributed to traditional management practices such as terracing, a form of conservation tillage, fertilization, and irrigation. To test the hypothesis that a body of knowledge underlies traditional soil management practices, interdisciplinary studies were conducted, involving linguistic evaluation of soil terms, anthropological field interviews, soil and geomorphic mapping, and basic morphological and laboratory characterization of soils identified by farmers. Anthropological research revealed a hierarchical soil classification system, with up to four categorical levels and about 50 soil and earth material names, that emphasizes soil texture and other properties important in agricultural management. Soil analyses indicated a fairly close correspondence between indigenous texture classes and those used in U.S. soil classification. Local farmers recognize several soil features and horizons such as duripans, soil variation with depth, distribution of soils on the landscape, and changes in soil behavior under different conditions.

REVIEWS*

Book reviewed in this article:ADEPOJU, A. and OPPONG, C. (eds.) (1994). Gender, Work and Population in Sub‐Saharan Africa.BRYCESON, D. F. (ed.) (1995). Women Wielding the Hoe: Lessons from Rural Africa for Feminist Theory and Development Practice.ALSTON, J. M., NORTON, G. W. and PARDEY, P. G.(1995). Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority SettingCOLMAN, D. and NIXSON, F. (1994). Economics of Change in Less Developed Countries (third edition)ERRINGTON, A. and GASSON, R. (1993). The Farm Family Business.KOPPEL, B. M.(ed.) (1995). Induced Innovation Theory and International Agricultural Development: A Reassessment.STRAK, J. and MORGAN, W. (eds.) (1995). The UK Food and Drink Industry: A Sector by Sector Economic and Statistical AnalysisSWANSON, T. M. (ed.) (1995). The Economi., and Ecology of Biodiversity Decline ‐ The Forces Driving Global Change.VAN DER PLAS, L. and FOOTE, M. (eds.) (1994). Rural Gender Studies in Europe. Assen, NetherlandsBRIEF NOTES: KIRKBY, J., O'KEEFE, P. and TIMBERLAKE, L. (eds.) (1995). The EarthscanBRIEF NOTES: PILLAI, V. K. and SHANNON, L. W. (eds.) (1995). Developing Areas: A Book of Readings and Research

BOOK REVIEWS

Book Reviewed in this article: Induced Innovation Theory and International Agricultural Development: A Reassessment edited by Bruce Koppel The Political Economy of Evaluation: International Aid Agencies and the Effectiveness of Aid by Jerker Carlsson

International trade and agricultural development in developing countries: Significance of the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations

Liberalization of world trade in agricultural products ranks high on the agenda of the Uruguay Round. After a period of more than six years, however, the negotiations have not been concluded. Nevertheless, an outcome seems to be in sight. The agreement will most likely not result in a move to freer trade. It seems that domestic policies will become even more regulative than in the past in an attempt to cut exportable surpluses and to ease trade tensions among the main exporting nations. This paper explores possible impacts of the GATT Round on agricultural development in developing countries. Agricultural development is more than only growth in agricultural production or productivity. However, it is argued in the paper that other variables which also indicate agricultural development are often closely correlated with growth in production and productivity. Trade in agricultural products is not always an engine for agricultural development. If internal divergences are not accounted for by appropriate domestic policies, trade may be even harmful to agricultural development. Hence, empirical research based on cross-country analysis does not provide a clear answer about the role of trade for development. Past policies in industrialized countries have most likely had a negative effect on developing countries as a group; however, the effects differ widely across countries. Liberalization policies in industrialized countries would not just reverse these negative effects for developing countries. Price reduction in industrialized countries may not result in the often-cited production decline in the short term. Present X-inefficiency in agriculture will be reduced by liberalization, leading to an outward shift of the supply curve. Hence, liberalization may not lead to higher world market prices for temperate-zone products in the short and medium term. Apart from this, empirical models differ widely in the price effects they predict. The expected outcome of the Uruguay Round — increased regulation of domestic policies — is likely both more negative for developing countries than past protectionist policies and worse than an overall liberalization. World market prices will increase, uncertainty and instability can be expected to grow, and food aid may become less available. There will be a need to react to these challenges with measures on the international and national level. Initiatives to deal with food crises in developing countries and to stimulate liberalization in developing countries should be considered. Finally, developing countries should be made aware that their own domestic policies have a much greater economic impact than policies in other countries, even if the latter are as protectionist as current agricultural policies in the industrialized world.

International trade and agricultural development in developing countries: Significance of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations

ABSTRACTLiberalization of world trade in agricultural products ranks high on the agenda of the Uruguay Round. After a period of more than six years, however, the negotiations have not been concluded. Nevertheless, an outcome seems to be in sight. The agreement will most likely not result in a move to freer trade. It seems that domestic policies will become even more regulative than in the past in an attempt to cut exportable surpluses and to ease trade tensions among the main exporting nations. This paper explores possible impacts of the GATT Round on agricultural development in developing countries. Agricultural development is more than only growth in agricultural production or productivity. However, it is argued in the paper that other variables which also indicate agricultural development are often closely correlated with growth in production and productivity. Trade in agricultural products is not always an engine for agricultural development. If internal divergences are not accounted for by appropriate domestic policies, trade may be even harmful to agricultural development. Hence, empirical research based on cross‐country analysis does not provide a clear answer about the role of trade for development.Past policies in industrialized countries have most likely had a negative effect on developing countries as a group; however, the effects differ widely across countries. Liberalization policies in industrialized countries would not just reverse these negative effects for developing countries. Price reduction in industrialized countries may not result in the often‐cited production decline in the short term. Present X‐inefficiency in agriculture will be reduced by liberalization, leading to an outward shift of the supply curve. Hence, liberalization may not lead to higher world market prices for temperate‐zone products in the short and medium term. Apart from this, empirical models differ widely in the price effects they predict.The expected outcome of the Uruguay Round – increased regulation of domestic policies – is likely both more negative for developing countries than past protectionist policies and worse than an overall liberalization. World market prices will increase, uncertainty and instability can be expected to grow, and food aid may become less available. There will be a need to react to these challenges with measures on the international and national level. Initiatives to deal with food crises in developing countries and to stimulate liberalization in developing countries should be considered. Finally, developing countries should be made aware that their own domestic policies have a much greater economic impact than policies in other countries, even if the latter are as protectionist as current agricultural policies in the industrialized world.

Participatory Research and Education: Science in Service to Horticultural Producers

T here has been a gradual weakening of the extension-research linkage within the U.S. land-grant system (Feller, 1986) and the international agricultural development community (Seegers and Kaimowitz, 1990). Changes within public horticultural research and extension organizations have been documented (Gerber, 1989; Gerber and Masiunas, 1989; Poling et al.; 1991). Recent policy statements from federal-level cooperative extension leaders call for a new interdependence model that strengthens the relationship among extension, research, industry, public agencies, and farmers (Bennett, 1990). This paper introduces a model for strengthening the extension-researcher-producer linkage by focusing on the needs of both horticultural producers and the general public. Further, it offers an alternative to the research and extension education paradigm in which knowledge is “discovered” by university researchers, “transferred” through extension education programs, and “put into practice” by producers. The participatory research and education model changes the largely unidirectional flow of information from researchers to practitioners (Watkins, 1990), and modifies current relationships among growers, extension educators, researchers, agricultural industry representatives, and community leaders (Francis et al., 1990). It provides a model for agricultural research and extension education based on a vision of partnership that better accommodates the changing needs of society and horticultural industries.

Reflections on Poverty

Most Asian cultures revere age. In Korea, for example, when you become an elder at the age of 61, there is a special birthday celebration called a Hwan-Gap. Afterward, the entire community treats the elder as a special person. And if male, the elder gets to wear a wonderful black stovepipe top hat called a Gac. By coincidence, I was 61 when you named me an AAEA Fellow two years ago. So today is my first occasion to thank you for my HwanGap, and my AAEA fellowship-your symbolic conferral of my Korean top hat! The Asian reverence for age is rooted in the idea that with age comes wisdom. But as I stand before you today, and as I look back on many years of involvement in international agricultural development, I must confess that I do not feel wise. Quite the contrary. When I compare the way I feel today with how I felt forty years ago, when my development career was just beginning, I find myself far less confident, far more troubled. Then, I was sure I had the answerssome anyway, if not all of them. Now, I have mostly questions, and some uncertainty whether even those are the ones we really ought to be asking.

Rethinking the role of U. S. development assistance in third world agriculture

International agricultural development as practiced by U. S. sponsored research groups in developing countries has emphasized technical questions of production, ignoring more fundamental social and economic issues that underline rural poverty and hunger. Rethinking the role of U. S. development assistance will require transcending the view that the only way to impact agriculture in the Third World is by increasing the intensity of land use in high potential agricultural areas. The challenge is to find ways of how to further increase agricultural productivity so that the rural poor significantly benefit, while at the same time conserving and regenerating the resource base. U. S. scientists must realize that this is only possible by improving the access of resource-poor farmers to land, water, other natural resources, as well as to equitable credit, markets, appropriate technologies, etc. Solidarious collaboration will emerge from the U. S. siding with progressive governments and/or community-based initiatives that promote political change aimed at securing farmers' control over resources and inputs, and changing the structural conditions and policies that perpetuate poverty.