Resilience over profitability: Could agricultural research deliver on both?
Subsistence- and market-oriented farmers have different production objectives and need different types of technologies; subsistence-oriented farmers produce crops to feed themselves and market-oriented farmers produce crops to sell. Yet, in many cases, a technology can increase both resilience and profits — a win–win solution for the household. We review 45 years of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics’s (ICRISAT) agricultural research and show how technologies can turn out to be win-win improving resilience and profitability.
It is clear that the distinction between these farming groups can never be absolute, as subsistence households need income and market-oriented households need to be resilient to cope with external factors that threaten crops.
Comparing past success stories compiled by ICRISAT with its current research strategy highlights the push towards a segregation of the two farming groups. Of the 13 technologies described under the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) program initiatives for Dryland Cereals and Grain Legumes (led by ICRISAT), our study found that 10 focused on raising productivity for market-oriented farmers. The remaining three technologies targeted subsistence-oriented farmers.
If technologies are to be effective and match the diversities of smallholder agriculture, the current strategy should be built on lessons from the past. Thus, we analyzed 20 of ICRISAT’s self-identified success stories to compare past efforts with its current focus. This revealed that 13 of the technologies enhanced resilience and 17 increased profits; 10 significantly increased both resilience and profits, offering an example of delivering the win–win outcomes.
A closer look at the win–win technologies reveals that after their release to address one target farming group they evolved differently than originally intended. The Integrated Striga and Soil Fertility Management strategy to mitigate the devastating effects of Striga hermonthica, a parasitic nutrient-sucking weed of pearl millet and sorghum in Mali, increased resilience and also profits. Along with Striga-resistant seeds, the strategy combined growing cowpea/groundnut with the cereals, using small quantities of fertilizer (micro-dosing), applying compost as manure, and hand-pulling Striga.
The farmers soon identified the market opportunity to sell cowpea/groundnut as a source of income beyond the cereal crop thereby increasing their overall profits while enjoying a stable cereal harvest. This example shows how a technology evolves and emerges into a win–win solution through continued experimentation by farmers and researchers even though not specifically designed for a win–win outcome.
Large research programs with a commodity focus view agriculture as a business venture. This is a view encouraged by donors who focus on agriculture as an entry point for rural development and is reflected in the review of the two ICRISAT-led programs that urge scientists to develop technologies for market- and subsistence-oriented farmers separately.
Outcomes of this approach are yet to be seen, but it might discourage broader thinking about the emergence and detection of win–win technologies in farmers’ fields. Increasing focus on commercialization may neglect highly vulnerable subsistence-oriented farmers; it is important to ensure resilience and possibly help farmers transition from subsistence to self-sufficiency and become market-oriented. Effective solutions for both farming groups are needed and keeping a lookout for opportunities to develop win–win technologies has become even more critical.
Read the full paper — Targeting resilience and profitability in African smallholder agriculture: Insights from ICRISAT-led research programs by Kai Mausch, Alastair Orr and B. Paige Miller on the FACETS website.
