Vulnerability to risk among small farmers in Tajikistan: results of a 2011 survey

Tajikistan is judged to be highly vulnerable to risk, including food insecurity risks and climate change risks. By some vulnerability measures it is the most vulnerable among all 28 countries in the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia Region – ECA (World Bank 2009). The rural population, with its relatively high incidence of poverty, is particularly vulnerable. The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) in Tajikistan (2011) provided an opportunity to conduct a farm-level survey with the objective of assessing various dimensions of rural population’s vulnerability to risk and their perception of constraints to farming operations and livelihoods. The survey should be accordingly referred to as the 2011 PPCR survey. The rural population in Tajikistan is highly agrarian, with about 50% of family income deriving from agriculture (see Figure 4.1; also LSMS 2007 – own calculations). Tajikistan’s agriculture basically consists of two groups of producers: small household plots – the successors of Soviet “private agriculture” – and dehkan (or “peasant”) farms – new family farming structures that began to be created under relevant legislation passed after 1992 (Lerman and Sedik, 2008). The household plots manage 20% of arable land and produce 65% of gross agricultural output (GAO). Dehkan farms manage 65% of arable land and produce close to 30% of GAO. The remaining 15% of arable land is held in agricultural enterprises – the rapidly shrinking sector of corporate farms that succeeded the Soviet kolkhozes and sovkhozes and today produces less than 10% of GAO (TajStat 2011) The survey conducted in May 2011 focused on dehkan farms, as budgetary constraints precluded the inclusion of household plots. A total of 142 dehkan farms were surveyed in face-to-face interviews. They were sampled from 17 districts across all four regions – Sughd, Khatlon, RRP, and GBAO. The districts were selected so as to represent different agro-climatic zones, different vulnerability zones (based on the World Bank (2011) vulnerability assessment), and different food-insecurity zones (based on WFP/IPC assessments). Within each district, 3-4 jamoats were chosen at random and 2-3 farms were selected in each jamoat from lists provided by jamoat administration so as to maximize the variability by farm characteristics. The sample design by region/district is presented in Table A, which also shows the agro-climatic zone and the food security phase for each district. The sample districts are superimposed on a map of food security phases based on IPC April 2011.

The WTO and Food Security: What’s Wrong with the Rules?

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is the predominant multilateral legal framework governing agricultural trade. The objective of the AoA is to liberalise trade in agriculture through reductions in tariffs, domestic support and export subsidies. The AoA has not, however, ‘levelled the playing field’ and has not resulted in the equitable distribution of food, particularly for the poorer developing countries. On the other hand, support for small farmers does not ensure food security for the poor. While food security has no simple solutions such as “free trade is good for you”, reform proposals for trade rules which only address agricultural policy instruments fail to account for consumer and other interests: neither tariff reductions and subsidy disciplines, nor safeguards and other measures of producer protection can automatically increase food security. Rather, what is needed is the full and proper implementation of a number of commitments which the international community has already entered into in various human rights treaties, but which even the envisaged results of the now failed Doha Round negotiations could not ensure without revisiting relevant multilateral trade and investment rules.

Sharing evidence of sustainable land management impacts

Ensuring sustainable use of natural resources is crucial for maintaining the basis for our livelihoods. With threats from climate change, disputes over water, biodiversity loss, competing claims on land, and migration increasing worldwide, the demands for sustainable land management (SLM) practices will only increase in the future. For years already, various national and international organizations (GOs, NGOs, donors, research institutes, etc.) have been working on alternative forms of land management. And numerous land users worldwide – especially small farmers – have been testing, adapting, and refining new and better ways of managing land. All too often, however, the resulting SLM knowledge has not been sufficiently evaluated, documented and shared. Among other things, this has often prevented valuable SLM knowledge from being channelled into evidence-based decision-making processes. Indeed, proper knowledge management is crucial for SLM to reach its full potential. Since more than 20 years, the international WOCAT network documents and promotes SLM through its global platform. As a whole, the WOCAT methodology comprises tools for documenting, evaluating, and assessing the impact of SLM practices, as well as for knowledge sharing, analysis and use for decision support in the field, at the planning level, and in scaling up identified good practices. In early 2014, WOCAT’s growth and ongoing improvement culminated in its being officially recognized by the UNCCD as the primary recommended database for SLM best practices. Over the years, the WOCAT network confirmed that SLM helps to prevent desertification, to increase biodiversity, enhance food security and to make people less vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and change. In addi- tion, it plays an important role in mitigating climate change through improving soil organic matter and increasing vegetation cover. In-depth assessments of SLM practices from desertification sites enabled an evaluation of how SLM addresses prevalent dryland threats. The impacts mentioned most were diversified and enhanced production and better management of water and soil degradation, whether through water harvesting, improving soil moisture, or reducing runoff. Among others, favourable local-scale cost-benefit relationships of SLM practices play a crucial role in their adoption. An economic analysis from the WOCAT database showed that land users perceive a large majority of the technologies as having benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. The high investment costs associated with some practices may constitute a barrier to adoption, however, where appropriate, short-term support for land users can help to promote these practices. The increased global concerns on climate change, disaster risks and food security redirect attention to, and trigger more funds for SLM. To provide the necessary evidence-based rationale for investing in SLM and to reinforce expert and land users assessments of SLM impacts, more field research using inter- and transdisciplinary approaches is needed. This includes developing methods to quantify and value ecosystem services, both on-site and off-site, and assess the resilience of SLM practices, as currently aimed at within the EU FP7 projects CASCADE and RECARE.

Reshaping Rural Extension: Learning for Sustainability (LforS): An Integrative and Learning-Based Advisory Approach for Rural Extension with Small-Scale Farmers

This publication offers concrete suggestions for implementing an integrative and learning-oriented approach to agricultural extension with the goal of fostering sustainable development. It targets governmental and non-governmental organisations, development agencies, and extension staff working in the field of rural development. The book looks into the conditions and trends that influence extension today, and outlines new challenges and necessary adaptations. It offers a basic reflection on the goals, the criteria for success and the form of a state-of-the-art approach to extension. The core of the book consists of a presentation of Learning for Sustainability (LforS), an example of an integrative, learning-oriented approach that is based on three crucial elements: stakeholder dialogue, knowledge management, and organizational development. Awareness raising and capacity building, social mobilization, and monitoring & evaluation are additional building blocks. The structure and organisation of the LforS approach as well as a selection of appropriate methods and tools are presented. The authors also address key aspects of developing and managing a learning-oriented extension approach. The book illustrates how LforS can be implemented by presenting two case studies, one from Madagascar and one from Mongolia. It addresses conceptual questions and at the same time it is practice-oriented. In contrast to other extension approaches, LforS does not limit its focus to production-related aspects and the development of value chains: it also addresses livelihood issues in a broad sense. With its focus on learning processes LforS seeks to create a better understanding of the links between different spheres and different levels of decision-making; it also seeks to foster integration of the different actors’ perspectives.

Agroecosystem resilience and farmers’ perceptions of climate change impacts on cocoa farms in Alto Beni, Bolivia

Cocoa-based small-scale agriculture is the most important source of income for most farming families in the region of Alto Beni in the sub-humid foothills of the Andes. Cocoa is grown in cultivation systems of varying ecological complexity. The plantations are highly susceptible to climate change impacts. Local cocoa producers mention heat waves, droughts, floods and plant diseases as the main impacts affecting plants and working conditions, and they associate these impacts with global climate change. From a sustainable regional development point of view, cocoa farms need to become more resilient in order to cope with the climate change related effects that are putting cocoa-based livelihoods at risk. This study assesses agroecosystem resilience under three different cocoa cultivation systems (successional agroforestry, simple agroforestry and common practice monocultures). In a first step, farmers’ perceptions of climate change impacts were assessed and eight indicators of agroecological resilience were derived in a transdisciplinary process (focus groups and workshop) based on farmers’ and scientists’ knowledge. These indicators (soil organic matter, depth of Ah horizon, soil bulk density, tree species diversity, crop varieties diversity, ant species diversity, cocoa yields and infestation of cocoa trees with Moniliophthora perniciosa) were then surveyed on 15 cocoa farms and compared for the three different cultivation systems. Parts of the socio-economic aspects of resilience were covered by evaluating the role of cocoa cooperatives and organic certification in transitioning to more resilient cocoa farms (interviews with 15 cocoa farmers combined with five expert interviews). Agroecosystem resilience was higher under the two agroforestry systems than under common practice monoculture, especially under successional agroforestry. Both agroforestry systems achieved higher cocoa yields than common practice monoculture due to agroforestry farmers’ enhanced knowledge regarding cocoa cultivation. Knowledge sharing was promoted by local organizations facilitating organic certification. These organizations were thus found to enhance the social process of farmers’ integration into cooperatives and their reorientation toward organic principles and diversified agroforestry.

Beyond biofuels: jatropha’s multiple uses for farmers in East Africa

The jatropha plant produces seeds containing 25–40% oil by weight. This oil can be made into biodiesel. During the recent global fuel crisis, the price of crude oil peaked at over USD 130 per barrel. Jatropha attracted huge interest – it was touted as a wonder crop that could generate biodiesel oil on “marginal lands” in semi-arid areas. Its promise appeared especially great in East Africa. Today, however, jatropha’s value in East Africa appears to lie primarily in its multipurpose use by small-scale farmers, not in large-scale biofuel production.