Impact of Bt cotton on farmer livelihoods in South Africa

The economic benefits of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in developing countries have been well documented, but little research has been undertaken to date on the impacts of GM adoption on household livelihoods. The research reported here aimed to assess the livelihood impacts of the adoption of Bt cotton in South Africa., and involved 100 interviews of resource-poor farmers growing Bt cotton in Makhathini Flats, South Africa. Some 88% of respondents reported a higher income from Bt compared to non-Bt varieties previously grown by them, and this higher income was used primarily for greater education of their children (76%), more investment in growing cotton (46%), repaying debt (28%), investment in other crops (20%) and spending money on themselves. Some 89% had increased their asset base due to Bt cotton, primarily by increasing their cultivable land. These benefits of Bt adoption appeared widespread regardless of gender or farm size.

Isolating the 'farmer' effect as a component of the advantage of growing genetically modified varieties in developing countries: a Bt cotton case study from Jalgaon, India

The present paper explores the 'farmer' effect in economic advantages often claimed for Bt cotton varieties (those with the endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis conferring resistance to some insect pests) compared to non-Bt varieties. Critics claim that much of the yield advantage of Bt cotton could be due to the fact that farmers adopting the technology are in a better position to provide inputs and management and so much of any claimed Bt advantage is an artefact rather than reflecting a real advantage of the variety per se. The present paper provides an in-depth analysis of 63 non-adopting and 94 adopting households of Bt cotton in Jalgaon, Maharashtra State, India, spanning the seasons 2002 and 2003. Results suggest that Bt adopters are indeed different from non-adopters in a number of ways. Adopters appear to specialize more on cotton (at least in terms of the land area they devote to the crop), spend more money on irrigation and grow well-performing non-Bt varieties of cotton (Bunny). Taking gross margin as the basis for comparison, Bt plots had 2.5 times the gross margin of non-Bt plots in both seasons. If only adopters are considered then the gross margin advantage of Bt plots reduces to 1.6 times that of non-Bt plots. This is still a significant advantage and could well explain the popularity of Bt in Maharashtra. However, it is clear that great care needs to be taken with such comparative studies.

Adaptation to climate change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa

We describe the nature of recent (50 year) rainfall variability in the summer rainfall zone, South Africa, and how variability is recognised and responded to on the ground by farmers. Using daily rainfall data and self-organising mapping (SOM) we identify 12 internally homogeneous rainfall regions displaying differing parameters of precipitation change. Three regions, characterised by changing onset and timing of rains, rainfall frequencies and intensities, in Limpopo, North West and KwaZulu Natal provinces, were selected to investigate farmer perceptions of, and responses to, rainfall parameter changes. Village and household level analyses demonstrate that the trends and variabilities in precipitation parameters differentiated by the SOM analysis were clearly recognised by people living in the areas in which they occurred. A range of specific coping and adaptation strategies are employed by farmers to respond to climate shifts, some generic across regions and some facilitated by specific local factors. The study has begun to understand the complexity of coping and adaptation, and the factors that influence the decisions that are taken.

Farmer experience of pluralistic agricultural extension, Malawi

Purpose: Malawi’s current extension policy supports pluralism and advocates responsiveness to farmer demand. We investigate whether smallholder farmers’ experience supports the assumption that access to multiple service providers leads to extension and advisory services that respond to the needs of farmers. Design/methodology/approach: Within a case study approach, two villages were purposively selected for in-depth qualitative analysis of available services and farmers’ experiences. Focus group discussions were held separately with male and female farmers in each village, followed by semi-structured interviews with 12 key informants selected through snowball sampling. Transcripts were analysed by themes and summaries of themes were made from cross case analysis. Findings: Farmers appreciate having access to a variety of sources of technical advice and enterprise specific technology. However, most service providers continue to dominate and dictate what they will offer. Market access remains a challenge, as providers still emphasize pushing a particular technology to increase farm productivity rather than addressing farmers’ expressed needs. Although farmers work in groups, providers do not seek to strengthen these to enable active interaction and to link them to input and produce markets. This limits farmers’ capacity to continue with innovations after service providers pull out. Poor coordination between providers limits exploitation of potential synergies amongst actors. Practical implications: Services providers can adapt their approach to engage farmers in discussion of their needs and work collaboratively to address them. At a system level, institutions that have a coordination function can play a more dynamic role in brokering interaction between providers and farmers to ensure coverage and responsiveness. Originality/value: The study provides a new farmer perspective on the implementation of extension reforms.

The researcher-farmer interface in the rice-wheat system: moving from agricultural productivity to livelihoods

This chapter explores some of the implications of adopting a research approach that focuses on people and their livelihoods in the rice-wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. We draw on information from a study undertaken by the authors in Bangladesh and then consider the transferability of our findings to other situations. We conclude that if our research is to bridge the researcher-farmer interface, ongoing technical research must be supported by research that explores how institutional, policy, and communication strategies determine livelihood outcomes. The challenge that now faces researchers is to move beyond their involvement in participatory research to understand how to facilitate a process in which they provide information and products for others to test. Building capacity at various levels for openness in sharing information and products–seeing research as a public good for all–seems to be a prerequisite for more effective dissemination of the available information and technologies.

Empirical test of an agricultural landscape model: the importance of farmer preference for risk aversion and crop complexity

Developing models to predict the effects of social and economic change on agricultural landscapes is an important challenge. Model development often involves making decisions about which aspects of the system require detailed description and which are reasonably insensitive to the assumptions. However, important components of the system are often left out because parameter estimates are unavailable. In particular, measurements of the relative influence of different objectives, such as risk, environmental management, on farmer decision making, have proven difficult to quantify. We describe a model that can make predictions of land use on the basis of profit alone or with the inclusion of explicit additional objectives. Importantly, our model is specifically designed to use parameter estimates for additional objectives obtained via farmer interviews. By statistically comparing the outputs of this model with a large farm-level land-use data set, we show that cropping patterns in the United Kingdom contain a significant contribution from farmer’s preference for objectives other than profit. In particular, we found that risk aversion had an effect on the accuracy of model predictions, whereas preference for a particular number of crops grown was less important. While nonprofit objectives have frequently been identified as factors in farmers’ decision making, our results take this analysis further by demonstrating the relationship between these preferences and actual cropping patterns.

Privatisation, empowerment and accountability: What are the policy implications for establishing effective farmer organisations?

Weak institutional development and information flows have constrained the extent to which the small-holder farming sector in developing countries can significantly drive growth and poverty reduction. Thisis despite widely implemented economic liberalisation policies focussing on market efficiency. Farmerorganisations are viewed as a potential means of addressing public and private institutional failure but thishas frequently been limited by inequalities in access to power and information. This article investigatestwo issues that have received little research attention to date: what role downward accountability plays inenabling farmer organisations to improve services and markets, and what influences the extent to whichdownward accountability is achieved. Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA), one of the largest farmerorganisations in the world (>400,000 farmers) is examined alongside wider literature. Mixed methodswere used including key informant interviews, and eight months of participant observation followedby a questionnaire survey. The article concludes that without effective downward accountability farmerorganisations can become characterised by institutions and mechanisms that favour elites, restrictedweak coordination and regulation, and manipulated information flows. This in turn reduces individuals’incentives to invest. If farmer organisations are to realise their potential as a means of enabling the small-holder sector to significantly contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction, policy and researchneeds to address key factors which influence accountability including: how to ensure initial processes information of farmer organisations establish appropriate structures and rules; strong state regulation toenhance corporate accountability; transparent information provision regarding actions of farmer organi-sation leaders; and the role independent non-government organisations can play. Consequently attentionneeds to focus on developing means of legitimising rights, building poor people’s capacity to challengeexclusion, and moving from rights to obligations regarding information provision.

The research productivity of the AIB Farmer Award finalists

Purpose – This paper aims to analyze the research productivity and impact of the finalists of the AIB best dissertation award, now titled the Buckley and Casson Award, but from 1987 to 2012 the Farmer Award. Specifically, this paper examines whether there is a relationship between winning the best dissertation award and subsequent publication productivity and impact. Relationships between academic institution and institutional geographic location and finalists are also examined. Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines 25 years of citation counts and the number of publications in Google Scholar of Farmer Award winners and finalists of the AIB best dissertation award from inception in 1987 to 2009, with cited publications as a measure of productivity and citations as a measure of impact. Top performers in productivity and impact are identified, and the averages of winners and non-winners are analyzed in aggregate, over time and per year. Data on finalists' institution and geographic location of institution are analyzed to describe the importance of location and institution to the award. Findings – It is found that the overall average citations of the winners of the award is less than that of the non-winners, and that in the large majority of years the non-winners have an average citation count higher than that of the winners. However, taking averages in five year increments shows more mixed results, with non-winners performing better in two periods and winners performing better in two periods, with the remaining period being split as to research productivity and impact. Originality/value – Aggarwal et al. in this journal summarized a variety of data on Farmer Award finalists from the 1990s to gain insights on institutions represented by finalists, the publication record of finalists, and content of dissertations, among other characteristics. This paper updates some of the insights from that paper by examining data on award winners from 1987 to 2013, and adds further insight by examining for the first time cited publications and citation counts winners and non-winners for the same period excluding the last two years.