Search results

This chapter examines how Maragoli women farmers’ plot-level crop control, individual, and household variables affect yields. This chapter contributes to a holistic understanding of the ramifications of quantitative and qualitative factors informing women farmers’ plot-level undertakings and yields as well as their innovative and creative strategies for optimizing output. It broadens the existing debate in the sub-Saharan African agricultural production literature by suggesting a composite measure of plot-level crop control as one factor influencing women farmers’ yields even in situations where land is owned by someone else. It also provides a rich discussion of the various and interlocking qualitative factors distorting women farmers’ incentive structures, efforts to increase plot-level yields and their strategies for minimizing the detrimental effects of the same.

A multimethod quantitative and qualitative ethnographic case study approach was used in this study.

This chapter demonstrates that women strategically bargained and invested more of their productive resources on the plots where they anticipated the greatest individual gains.

This chapter underscores women farmers’ ability to boost agricultural output when there are appropriate incentives for them to do so and suggests the theoretical and practical relevance of secure control and property rights over the products of the land not for the household (head), but for the cultivator. The chapter demonstrates and reaffirms that Africa women farmers respond appropriately to incentives and suggests that there is need for a customized, renewed, and sustained emphasis on women farmers’ empowerment and inclusion in all levels in the agricultural sector in order to actualize increased yields. Investing in women farmers and implementing policies that narrow existing gender disparities in African agricultural production systems is holistically beneficial.

World agriculture faces enormous challenges in the coming decades. To feed the world adequately in 2050, agricultural production in developing economies will need to nearly double. Incremental production will mainly come from increases in yields or cropping intensities. This chapter focuses on the potential of genetically modified (GM) crops to contribute to agricultural productivity growth and poverty reduction in developing economies. On the basis of a comprehensive literature review of the most recent literature, we aim to shed light on (a) whether GM crops benefit farmers in developing economies and (b) whether GM crops that are currently in the research pipeline address future challenges for agriculture. The first part of the chapter reviews farm-level impacts of GM crops in developing economies. The second part discusses the GM crop research pipeline. GM crop markets are expected to grow in the future but not to change dramatically. We conclude that GM crops benefited farmers, including resource-poor farmers, in developing economies, but benefits are location- and individual-specific. Addressing such complexities will be required to unlock technology potentials.

Purpose – The role of genetically modified (GM) crops for food security is the subject of controversial debates. Consequently, policy-makers are unsure whether this technology is suitable for developing countries. This chapter reviews the scientific evidence.

Methodology/approach – Starting from a food security definition, potential pathways of how GM crops could contribute to hunger reduction are analyzed conceptually. Furthermore, studies about the socioeconomic impacts of GM crop applications are reviewed. This includes ex post studies for present applications such as insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops, as well as ex ante studies for future GM technologies such as Golden Rice and drought-tolerant varieties.

Findings – GM crops can raise agricultural productivity and thus contribute to better food availability. Especially when tailored to small farm conditions, GM crops can also cause income increases for the rural poor, entailing better access to food. Nutritionally enhanced, biofortified GM crops could reduce problems of micronutrient malnutrition in a cost-effective way.

Research limitations – The examples observable so far are still limited. Impacts also depend on the wider institutional setting. Like any technology, GM crops are not a substitute but a complement to much needed institutional and infrastructure improvement in developing countries.

Social implications – The fact that available GM crops already contribute to poverty reduction and improved food security has not been widely recognized up until now.

Value of paper – Results presented in this chapter can contribute to a more constructive public debate, in which GM crop risks are not discussed out of the context of actual and potential benefits.

The purpose of this chapter is to ask and answer the question of what would happen if Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) plant materials were banned. We report on two studies – one with United States only ban and one with a global ban. We used a global computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), for the analysis. This model has been used in hundreds of published papers on trade, energy, land use, and environmental issues. Our use of the model was to estimate the crop yield benefits for the major GMO crops, and then to convert this to a loss if the GMO traits were banned. We then shocked the GTAP model with the yield losses and estimate economic, land use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts. We found that losing the GM technology would cause commodity and food prices to increase and also bring about a significant increase in GHG emissions. The increase in emissions is caused by the need to convert forest and pasture to compensate for the lost production. Another interesting conclusion of the global ban study is that economic well-being for the United States, the world’s largest GMO user, actually increases with a ban. Many regions that ban or use little GMO varieties like the European Union, India, China, and Japan all see economic well-being decrease. These counterintuitive results are driven mainly by trade patterns. Therefore GMO technology helps agriculture reduce its carbon footprint. Without this technology, agricultural land-use GHG emissions increase as do food prices. Some groups would like to see GMOs banned and also see GHG emissions fall. You cannot have it both ways.

There is an urgent need to develop climate-smart agrosystems capable of mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. Conventional agricultural practices prevail in Mauritius, whereby synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides are used. It should be noted that Mauritius remains a net-food importing developing country of staple food such as cereals and products, roots and tubers, pulses, oil crops, vegetables, fruits and meat (FAO, 2011). In Mauritius, the agricultural sector faces extreme weather conditions like drought or heavy rainfall. Moreover, to increase the crop yields, farmers tend to use 2.5 times the prescribed amount of fertilizers in their fields. These excess fertilizers are washed away during heavy rainfall and contaminate lakes and river waters. By using smart irrigation and fertilization system, a better management of soil water reserves for improved agricultural production can be implemented. Soil Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) content, humidity, pH, conductivity and moisture data can be monitored through the cloud platform. The data will be processed at the level of the cloud and an appropriate mix of NPK and irrigation will be used to optimise the growth of the crops. Machine learning algorithms will be used for the control of the land drainage, fertilization and irrigation systems and real time data will be available through a mobile application for the whole system. This will contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 2 (Zero Hunger), 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), 12 (Responsible consumption and production) and 15 (Life on Land). With this project, the yield of crops will be boosted, thus reducing the hunger rate (SDG 2). On top of that, this will encourage farmers to collect the waters and reduce fertilizer consumption thereafter sustaining the quality of the soil on which they are cultivating the crops, thereby increasing their yields (SDG 15).

In The Changing Body (Cambridge University Press and NBER, 2011), we presented a series of estimates showing the number of calories available for human consumption in England and Wales at various points in time between 1700 and 1909/1913. We now seek to correct an error in our original figures and to compare the corrected figures with those published by a range of other authors. We also include new estimates showing the calorific value of meat and grains imported from Ireland. Disagreements with other authors reflect differences over a number of issues, including the amount of land under cultivation, the extraction and wastage rates for cereals and pulses and the number of animals supplying meat and dairy products. We consider recent attempts to achieve a compromise between these estimates and challenge claims that there was a dramatic reduction in either food availability or the average height of birth cohorts in the late-eighteenth century.

This chapter analyzes the economic implications of genetic engineering for food security. We discuss the asynchronous nature of genetically modified (GM) crop regulation and labeling requirements among countries, associated politics, and consumer perceptions of GM crops.

We perform an ex-ante analysis of the introduction of a GM rice variety in major rice exporting and importing countries (including potential producer and consumer impacts) within the framework of a partial equilibrium trade model.

Although the introduction of a GM rice variety that increases global yield by 5% could result in a consumer gain of US$23.4 billion to US$74.8 billion, it could also result in a producer loss of US$9.7 billion to US$63.7 billion. The estimated net gain to society could be US$11.1 billion to US$13.7 billion. Overall, we find a positive economic surplus for major exporters and importers of rice based on a 5% supply increase with a GM rice variety.

The adoption of transgenic (GM) rice varieties would have a far greater impact on rice prices for poorer counties than for richer countries. Therefore, GM rice may help ensure that more people throughout the world would have food security.

The widespread introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops may change the effect of agriculture on the environment. The magnitude and direction of expected effects are still being hotly debated, and the interests served in this discussion arena are often far from those of science and social welfare maximization. This chapter proposes that GM crops have net positive environmental effects, while regulatory responses focus mainly on environmental concerns, giving an unbalanced picture of the regulatory context. This unbalance supports the hypothesis that environmental concerns about GM crops have been politically instrumentalized and that more attention should be paid to regulatory responses considering the environmental benefits of this technology. It is also argued that a number of environmental effects have not yet been quantified and more research is needed in this direction.

This paper attempts to understand how the interaction of natural disasters and human behaviour during wartime led to famines in three regions under imperial control around the Indian Ocean. The socio-economic structure of these regions had been increasingly differentiated over the period of imperial rule, with large proportions of their populations relying on agricultural labour for their subsistence.

Before the war, food crises in each of the regions had been met by the private importation of grain from national or overseas surplus regions: the grain had been made available through a range of systems, the most complex of which was the Bengal Famine Code in which the able-bodied had to work before receiving money to buy food in the market.

During the Second World War, the loss of control of normal sources of imported grain, the destruction of shipping in the Indian Ocean (by both sides) and the military demands on internal transport systems prevented the use of traditional famine responses when natural events affected grain supply in each of the regions. These circumstances drew the governments into attempts to control their own grain markets.

The food crises raised complex ethical and practical issues for the governments charged with their solution. The most significant of these was that the British Government could have attempted to ship wheat to Bengal but, having lost naval control of the Indian Ocean in 1942 and needing warships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean in 1943 chose to ignore the needs of the people of Bengal, focussing instead on winning the war.

In each of the regions governments allowed/encouraged the balkanisation of the grain supply – at times down to the sub-district level – which at times served to produce waste and corruption, and opened the way for black markets as various groups (inside and outside government ranks) manipulated the local supply.

People were affected in different ways by the changes brought about by the war: some benefitted if their role was important to the war-effort; others suffered. The effect of this was multiplied by the way each government ‘solved’ its financial problems by – in essence – printing money.

Because of the natural events of the period, there would have been food crises in these regions without World War II, but decisions made in the light of wartime exigencies and opportunities turned crises into famines, causing the loss of millions of lives.