An Approach to Hunger and Poverty Reduction for Sub-Saharan Africa by International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

An Approach to Hunger and Poverty Reduction for Sub-Saharan Africa

Hartmann

2004

[l Internatio nal Inst itute of Tropical Agricult ure (Il TA), 2004 I ~ adan,

Nigeria

Telephone : (234 2)2412626 Fax : (2342)2412221 E-mai l: iita @cgia r.org Web :lNVoM'.ilta .org To He adquarters from outside Nigeria :

cio Lambourn (UK) Ltd Carolyn House 26 Dingwall Road. Croydon CR9 JEE . UK W ithin Nigeria:

PMB 5320. Dyo Road Ibada n, Oyo State Printed in Nigeria by ItTA

An Approach to Hunger and Poverty Reduction for Sub-Saharan Africa ' Executive summary Poverty remains the greatest barrier to improving qual ity of life. One of the most effective ways to aneviate poveny. and in turn its inseparable partner hunger. is through agriculture and the production of mo.-e food . But a successful approach cannot only be about agriculture--it has to recognize the vital role it plays in the bigger picture. A strength of the approach presented here of local production. wealth creation. and risk reduction. is its embrace of strategies that recognize that the issues that contribute to poverty are intertwined. The degree of impact from this approach depends on several factors. no t the least of wh ich

is investor and implementing en tity choices. The choices investors make in how activities are financed may be as important as how much. Equalty. the choices made by develo pment institutIons such as IITA and its nat io nal and regional partners on problem definitions and research-far-development methods, are also critical. Understanding the implications of these choices is one key to greater progress in meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) . The second key is the need to fully appreciate the impact agriculture has on health. nutritIo n, income , productivity and rural development. IITA's poverty reduction strategy for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is based on three telescopic prongs: to encourage local product jon in ways that aeate wealth and reduce risk for farmers and both the rural and urban poor. If the development community has to choose JUSt one activity with which to address the first MDG of reducing extreme poverty and hunger. we should produce more food in a way that creates wealth and addresses producer risks.

Introduction Poverty Despite the agonizing pervasiveness of poverty. progress towards reducing this blemish on human existe nce is slow. Though there have been quantifiable achic\lcments. they are not easily visible . Several (actors contribute to this sluggish rate of progress. One might be that some people view poverty as chronic and unavoidable, and therefore do not give it the

attention it deserves. Another is that governments of the countries where poverty is rife are often themselves poor. not only fina ncially but also in

terms of capacity and institutional strength. The increasing populations of new arrivals into human kind. many of who are born into poverty. further dilute progress. We recogn ize that the lack of wealth is not the only reason (or poverty. If th is were the case. poverty in rich cou ntries would be conSiderably less.! Identifying who is poor is nOt a straightforward task. Every attempt to describe poverty is made from a specific vantage point and vested interests.] Some are bent on showing how much poverty there is. others on showing how little exiscs.The ubiquitous $1 per day indicator carries a multitude of debatable assumptions: however. its simplicity is brilliant because it provides a measure to wh ich everyone can relate.路 One fact we can all agree on is that poverty leods to negative ou[comes.

Poverty leads to poor he<l.lth with its associated costs and low productivity. Poverty leads to poor education and wasted minds. Poverty leads to miserable lives and crime. Poverty leads to normally unacceptable choices. such as educating one group over another (e.g.. children vs. adultS ). or addressing causes of poverty at the expense of those presently in poverty (e .g .. causes of child labor vs. rescuing children from labor) . Outcomes of poverty retard progress. To compound matters. poverty in poor countries. unlike in wealthier countries . often has irreversible consequences. In poor regions of the world. farmers who have been wiped out by a crop disaster will most likely be lost to agriculture for good. Similarly. a child who misses an educational opportunity has probably missed it forever. The consequences of poverty go beyond the obvious deficits of food. shelter. education. and ill health. The hidden issues of setf-respect. dignity.

insecurity, and loss of aspirations are of equal importance. As German Chancellor Schroeder observed recently Uanuary 20(4) in Addis Ababa. the continent could end its chronic wars only if it defeated the poverty and disease that create a "vicious cycle" of suffering. This description paints a depressing picture. but all is not grim. Globally. the standard of living has risen slighdy o~r the last few decades. Per capita consumption has doubled in developing countries since 1980. Economists say income growth has been accompanied by improvements in social indicators. and that infant mortality has fallen by half o~r the last 30 years. "'n the aggregate". food production has kept pace with population growth, and while increased production does not always equal increased consumption by the poor. it is a necessary precondition. Governments report progress in primary school enrolments. adult literacy. and the Je~ling of female-male proportions in net enrolments. Over the last 20 years. mortality rates for children under five have dropped by a third. These success stories underscore the reality that improving the quality of /ife is possible. The challenge is co increase che rate of progress so that the wide regional disparities we now face are reduced. Child mortality rate in sub-Saharan Afr ica (SSA) has not declined. It is infuriating also co see chat 50% of all deaths of minors can be attributed to either poor nutrition or a lack of food. ) Here is a critica.l entry point for any poverty reduction strategy.

Approaches to poverty reduction In 2000. the world community agreed on HOGs. This was an important milestone. which gives us a common agenda and aims to pursue. This paper is intended as a contribution on how to achieve the first HOG in SSA by providing an implementation approach. The first MDG is the eradication of extreme povercy and hunger.路 There is a good reason for partnering the words poverty and hunger. It is difficult to talk about one without the other. We can do a lot about hunger through agriculture----defined broadly to include crops. livestock. and aquaculture. We can also tackle hunger in a w'N'/ that contributes directly to redUCing poverty. Furthermore. the focus on the agricultural and rural sectors carries with it very direct contributions to the other HOGs focused on reducing gender bias and child mortality. To better understand the linkages and rationale of the approach presented here for SSA. it is helpful to visit the relationship between poverty and agriculture.

Poverty and agriculture The powerful relationship between poverty and agriculture is not widely

appreciated nor the fact that agriculture is vital to both the urban and the rural poor. The relationship between poverty and agriculture is actually rather straighdorward. and while we can always "complicate" such links, the value of "complicating" in development is questionable. Here is the story.

Improvements in agricultural productivity lead directly to increases in food production. Increases in food production. in turn, lead to cheaper food . Cheap food carries enormous benefits for poor consumers. farmers . and both the rural and urban poor. This benefit to the poor comes via the reduced cost of food. which constitutes a very high percentage of the ir household expenditure. Thus the ~va ilabjlity of cheap food means a substantial income boost. If we reduce the cost of food by just 10%, it would be eq uivalent to an increase in income of 5% or more for the poor. There are some risks for the producerl farmer related to decreased food costs. However. it rema ins a powerlul development tool. not only for the millions of urban poor, but also for farmers, 30--60% of who are also net food buyers.' There is morc. The reduced COSt of food is not the only benefit. To reduce the COSt of food it is necessary to produce more food. As more food is produced , substantial economic activities are generated all along the way in production, collection, grading. storage. transport, consoli dation, processing. and reta il. These activities create employment and income opportunities for both the rural and urban poor. But the benefits don 't stop there. In addition to the economic benefits of producing more food. th e availability of cheap food . and thus greater access and consumption of food, contributes direcdy to improved nutrition for the poor. Again, the Story is quite simple. For the poor. more food is a good thing. Improved nutrition in turn contributes to better hea lth. Better health itsetf adds to economic wellbeing as a healthy population gets sick less frequently. is more productive, and spends fewer resources on medicines. doctors. and funerals. The importance of agricultural productivity as a tool for poverty reduction in SSA cannot be overscated, particularly if the r isks outlined below are also addressed. Conclusion If the development community has to choose just one activ ity with which to address the first HDG of reducing extreme poverty and hunger. we should

produce more food. No buts. no ifs. The following is one effective way to do that.

Local production, wealth creation, and risk reduction: the IITA approach The IITA approach is a telescoped conceptual package of research-fordevelopment choices that emphasize local production. with a focus on wealth creation and a strong r isk reduction strategy. It implies expl icit investor. implementing entity, and client choices about how development is financed,

what aspect of the problem we work on, which research options and methods we select, and with whom we join as partners. It recognizes that addressing poverty call s for a multitude of approaches, oot only in d ifferent r egions but also within regions and groups.

The value of this approach is that it is conceptuaHc is a deds ionguide on options. not a formula. Its added utility is derived from the faCt that while the specific paths and approaches selected may vary across different parts of the subcontinent and different agricultural systems, the principle applies over a w ide spectrum of the problem. mak ing the concept itself a publ ic good. Wh ile the approach was designed to ensure inclusion of the lower end of the income spectrum. it has worked over a wide range of incomes. It also works over different agricultural activities. IITA and its national partners are successfully applying the approach from hum id zones to ar id savannas, from roots and tubers to bananas and plantains. from

food-deficit zones to food-surplus zones. Local production

The argument for local production can be viewed from several perspectives. We argue for local production because it is the most stable way to improve livelihoods. increase food security, and contribute to long-term and broad-based economic growth. By taking this approach, we also address food security issues. which are direcdy related to poverty.! In developing countries. the poor reside mostly in rural areas and derive their livelihood direcdy or indirectly from agriculture. But agriculture is vital for rural and urban areas-"onty improved agricultural productivity can simultaneously improve welfare among the two-thirds of all Africans who work primarily in agriculture as well as the urban poor who spend over 60% of their budget on food.'"

Investing in the rural areas slows down migration to cities as incomes generated in rural areas te nd to be invested locally. and both the rural sector and the country as a whole directly derive be nefits from rural economic activity. 10 There are several incentives to red uce the flow of rural-urban migration in SSA. For o ne, cities have limited capacity to abso rb the rural poo r. For another. addressing th e problems of t he urba n poor is an even greater challenge. as expe rtise in this field is lacking and most interventions directed at urban areas are more costly than th ose for rural areas. Furthermore. the rural sector can provide an effective conduit for the pro tection of biodiversity. Increasi ng agricu ltural productivity is one sure way to reduce the loss of biod iversi ty. as almost all deforestation in SSA is due to the expans ion of agr iculture. Focusing on local production is also ne eded because t he alternati ve is food importation. and that is not without its li mitations. Wh ile the industrialized world ap pears to have th e capacity to produce e nough food to feed the entire world. it is not the complete solution." Such an approach does not fully accommodate nuanc es of geopolitics, climate. food preferences. global and regional trade. foreign currency. or limitations o( infrastructure and information. Infrastructure in SSA cu rrently const rains even the internal movement of commodities. More importantly. the impor t app roach doe s not address the d ifference between wh at is available from th e in dustr ialized world and what is desire d in th e developing worl d. 11 Agriculture is more than contained in the common definition.The word itself is a co mposite one of "agri + culture". Food production and consumptio n are intimate ly connected to cultural and soc ial systems. ll In Mal i. people prefer Guinea sorghum. no matter what "experts" say. The ~:,(portable foods from the industrialized worl d cover only a ve ry narrow band of commodities consumed by people in SSA. Exports from the developed world are dom inated by cereals and do not. for example. include ya m or cassava., on w hich over a thi rd of the pop ul at ion of SSA depends. A very large number of commodit ies that the poor feed on in SSA are simply not produced in the industrialized world (Table I). Further. even when the available overlaps with the desired. th e lack of purchasing power and limitatio ns of foreign currency supply come into play.

Table I. Important SSA foods. Cassava

103

Maize

Banana/plantain

Milk

28 28 27

Sorghu m

Mille t

Meat

Per capita kg/ye a r

FAOSTAT

Yam

In the long term, changing food habits in the rich countries may result in reversals where more foods from developing countries are in demand.

Economic pro jections for the United States. for example. suggest that the country will be a net food importer by 20 IO. as Americans demand more foods not produced domestically. Such trends may present an opportunity for products from deve loping countries. which may compensate for the drastic 75% decl ine of trad itional SSA exports over the past 40 years." furthermore. if the ongoing discussions on the reduction or removal of heavy agricultural subsidies in the developed world succeed. the economics of food exports to the developing world might change .

The notion that commodities should be moved from where they can be

produced cheaply to where they are most needed has logic. But we argue. for the reasons stated above. that a large share of the future growth in food production should occur in developing countries. It is absolutely critical that it occurs in SSA. Having taken this position, pragmatism is in order. Our position takes aim at a long-term goal. In the short term, aU possible avenues must be exploited. In parts of SSA. it is currently sometimes cheaper to import from Europe and North America than from neighboring countries. Further, the notion of moving commodities from places of abundance to places of need has to be appreciated not merely as movement from the industrialized world to the poor world, but more so from surplus areas of SSA to deficit areas of

SSA. If we could move food economically between the regions. SSA would be food-secure. At present, due to problems of infrastructure. conflict. politics,

and the lingering effects of coonial invenments. the movement of food from surplus to deficit areas WI SSA is far (rom optimal. Progress to this end would go a long way in reducing food insecurity and poverty" ~ Wealth creation The effect of increasing food production is not without risks. As farmers produce more food. they benefit from increased sales: however, this ultimately works against them. as in 2003 when Nigerian farmers suffered from the effects of a severe glut of cassava. Other complementary strategies are necessary to avoid the price seesaw and protect producers. Fortunately, these very complementary strategies. if well designed. also provide opportunities for wealth creatioo. The wealth creation concept is to take what farmers already produce and use it to eam more income. There can be no clearer strategy. If Tanunian farmers grow cassava, they can be helped to sell it at the next rung on the ladder. If Uganda farmers increase banana production. we can create additional outlets for their crop. Simple process;ng.such as sun·dried banana or cassava, for example. can double or even triple incomes. Similarly:

•

• •

If brmers in arid lands grow cowpea, we can offer them a dual-purpose cowpea that gives them both grain for human consumption and fodder (or their livestock. If they sell cowpea grain. they can also sell cowpea cakes in demand with workers. If they graze small livestock or keep a dairy CaN, they can use the fodder from dual-purpose cowpea to benefit from faster weight-gains or more milk. or they can transform the full cassava plant into a livestock feed via dage 0,. feed pellets. If they process a crop they can be helped to save energy (both human and an imal and from fuel) and in so doing improve tf:leil" incomes. If they are too small to benefit from economies of scale and better terms of trade. we can assist with organization.

Such activities result in moving commodities and products into other uses and other places. These movements present yet another pCYNerful poverty reduction concept. which is that the expansion of markets via the creation

___-t~

Other forms and uses

Subsistence needs

Production for subsistence needs

Figure 1. Price stabilization through market expansion.

of new outlets contributes to price stabilization (Fig. I) w ithout the need for

costly government programs.

Risk reduction Producers face risks that need to be managed. The poorer the farmers. the more limited their ability to deal with these risks. Addressing them is an important strategy for poverty reduction. Umitotions of the risk reduction strotegies of the poor Like anyone else. farmers. rural families. and the poor try to avoid or reduce their risks. Poor farmers consistently attempt to diversify their sources of income by working part time. Knowtedgeable about climatic risks, they not only grow different crops, but also grow them in different locations. Unfortunately. farmers' excellent strategies. ohen let them down because the tools at their disposal and their ability to respond to risks are limited. Farmers are confined to certain kxalities and have limited purchasing power and a very low asset base. Droughts. for example. affect not only the different locations where crops are grown. but also other agricultural activities in the area. The result is that alternative employment opportunities are reduced at the very time farmers need them most. So in spite of remarkable levels of local knowledge and creativity. farmers' responses to risks are limited. Thus. the third line of this approach is devoted to supplementing risk management efforts. Here is a crittcal point where investor choice determines options.

â&#x20AC;˘

Biological

IIII1ll Political

~ Labor

Warlenn...

~ Asset loss

200 ~

150

100

?f!.

Risks faced Source: adjusted from S. Dereon, 1999.

Figure 2. Risks as viewed by African farmers over 20 years.

Types of risks We categorize the risks faced by producers and rural communities into four broad groups: biological, commercial. natural. and political. But how do the

fanners themselves categorize the risks they face~ Their categorization is captured in Figure 2. Th is graph summarized a survey of critical factors that affected farmers over a period of 20 years. Farmers put biological risks at the top. by far. Their view corresponds with the combination of biological and natural disaster risks defined below. These farmer risk-priorities may vary across SSA but the pattern appears representative. This suggests that if the first MDG to reduce hunger and poverty is a priority. then both investors and implementing entities should focus on biological and natural risks. Biological risks. These come in many forms: viruses, fungi. bacteria. worms, other pests. and weeds. At present. at least five Ease: African countries are facing threats from a cassava virus. Natio na l scientists in Mozambique and Tanzania report damage rates or 50-80%. We do nOt know much about this virus and while we research it, we can only implemene: containment plans. A combination of two other virus strains is threatening the stability of countries in West and Central Africa. Equally. bananas in Uganda are under attack from weevils. and cowpea (b lack-eyed pea) in the Guinea savanna of West

Africa is under threat from pests. Parasitic weeds alone threaten the food systems of over 100 million people in West and Central Africa. losses are estimated in the billions of dollilrs. In the decision process under the IITA approach. preference would be gi . . . en to research methodologies that are less dependent on policies, inputs. costly government programs. and services. An example of such methodologies IS the biocontrol program we used on particular mango and cassava pests. These programs required only government permission and the collaboration of nationill pa rtners. Some of the co untries be nefiting from the programs were at war and the ir civil and extension services were dysfunctional. yet the program worked--"the Africa路wide biological control program averted the devastating cassava mealybug epidemic ."'6 The program delivered tremendous impact ' 7. The prereq uisite for the success of such very knowledge路intensive programs is the nature of investor support and finanCing. It is difficult to implement a biocontrol option successfully without long路tenn co mmi tment to knowledge generation.The largest development impact in SSA came via investor support of lo nge r term research on biologica l r isks. Perhaps less appreciated than other risks are the commercial risks tha t farmers face . When we encourage increases in production. we expose produce rs to price fluctuations that can ruin them . Though rarely publicized . African farmers often face serious food surplus problems. Today, Nigeria is struggling with its "success" in produci ng enough food because it has led to severe price drops. In parts of Ta nzania. food products from dairy cooperatives and the horticultural sector are d umped every day. wh ile other parts of the country suffer from shortages. The accommodation of such commercial risks must be an integral component of th e choices we make. An effective path to take. once subsistence production is reached, is market expansion. As described in the section on wealth creation products need to be moved into alternative uses and information systems constructed to facilitate the marketing of the commodities and their products. This h3S the adde d advantage of less depe ndence on policies or a government's ability to participate in the

Commercial risks.

market (Fig. I).

Natural disosters. The cycle of drought that wreaks havoc in southern Africa is well defined and relatively predictable. Figure 3 depicts 20 years of crop volatility in Southern Africa. The "cereal" line is represented by maiz.e's sensitivity to moisture variations and the "cassava" line that of roots and tubers represented by cassava. The degree of pain that the population experiences in that region could be greatly decreased by reducing dependency on a limited number of crops such as maize, ultra sensitive to moisture.The overdependence on ma ize in drought路 prone regions. the result of a combination of bad adV'ice and bad pol icies, needs to be reduced. An approach in such regions where there might be an overdependence on a few very moisture sensitive crops. such as in Malawi. is to encourage consumers to broaden their food 路 band to include other crops. A broader food-band will reduce their vulnerab il ity while also deriving other benefits such as improved hea lth and reduced food costs. Some Kenyan highland farmers have already gradually started to reduce the ir dependence on maiz.e through crop diversification.'e Broadening the food-band in Malawi to include hardy legumes such as cowpea. for example. will not only improve maize yields, but also provide food d uring critical periods befo re the maize harvest. Additionally. cowpea fixes nitrogen from the air and puts it in the soil. and has deep and dense roots that reduce s~1 erosion.19

Po/itkol risks. A wise person once observed. "history leach es us nothing, bur punishes (or not leorning its kssons."XlThe extent of policy failures in SSA is such that policies themselves need to be treated ilS additional risks for the poor. The success or failure of a policy often depends not so much on the policy itself but more on how a government and its implementing agenc ies function. In SSA. overdependence on po licy instruments has been detrimental for many.2 1 The terrain in SSA is littered w ith we ll-intentioned. top down. or externally induced policies that did not work.}} The pile of policies imposed from within or without has greatly disadvantaged fanners. "Africa's policy environment has been generally inconsistent and unstable. Shifts in policy paradigms have failed to overcome the challenges to agriculture, and have failed to provide guidance ror appropriate interventions."ll In SSA at least. there may be other factors more important than poJ;cies~ such as the interrelated dimensions of cultural strengths and institutions. Institutions in this context pertain to aspects such as accountability. political stability, government effectiveness. regulatory burden.

•

::.:

•

i--+-

-~ PUIS~~

Cereals

Cassava

Source: FAOSTAT

Figure 3. Production of roots and tubers versus cereals, and pulses In five drought-affected countnes In southern Africa.

Year

~#~ # &~####~####~;~;#;#

1 000000~~~-r~---~~--r.--r~

3000000 2000000 -

:. .-6..

•

~...

I ___

2000 Drought

5000000 ~ .9~ 4000000 8000000 t ,

(/) 6000000

8000000 ; 7000000 J

9000000 ~

rule of law, and corruption. There is some doubt that macroeconomic policies account for economic development beyond that contributed by institutions. 24 Stated in abstraction. the "right" policy would be helpful. But this posture simply assumes too much. It is easy to state. for example, that regional trade will flourish with a "supportive" poliCY, but we know that just having such a policy is far from sufficient. We also know that policies have often created false expectations and distorted investments. Policy maintena nce and policy reversals are major problems that create high levels of uncertainty, as in the case of Ghana.H Policies that have a negative effect on agricultural growth are of course worse. even if only sporadically implemented. Furthermore , good policies without the ability to finance and sustain them can only create misplaced investments of resources. time, and hope. Even excellent leadership with commitment to and support of good policies. does not always tnnslate into effective policy implementation. itâ&#x20AC;˘ Poor policies and Imp lementation problems as ide. wa iting for an appropriate policy to be adopted can also be extremely costly. On the issue of child labor, few policies are clear or even exist. but the situation can be improved without an explicit policy. In SSA. history shows that most agricultu ral improvements have arisen despite eXisting national policies.:17 Add this to implementation problems mentioned above and the earlier enth us iasm for getting an "appropriate" policy fra mework or the "right" enabling environment is greatly diminished for many working on the development side of the spectrum. Implementation problems aside, the intrinsic weakness of policy formu lation approaches are not trivial. Professio na l bli nders being what they are. it is a rare policy :analyst indeed who will not define a problem. with it policy twise.a Then. once Âˇ'the causes" have been selected, :and the problem formulated into a policy issue. it tends to sideline other important interacting causes . thus confining public discourse on the subject.'" For example. child labor concerns based on minimum wage legislation or trade sanctions have very litde relevance to the majority of children in developing countries. most of whom work outside the formal sector.)O These concerns over policy instruments warrant that policies themselves are added to the catalog of risks that the poor face. This should not be confused with the need for analytical work to inform government. but rather is a caution against an overdependence on policy instruments. as they have been traditionally generated. The consequences of poverty are too great to be left

to policy analysts and policy instruments. Greater participation by the affected constituency in both the definition and resolution of the problem is needed. A "constituency-supported" approach could reduce some of the above weaknesses. Once a constituency is built around a desired goal. it is better if the constituency itself. and not external entities, voice their co ncern and assist their government in adopting a supportive attitude. J I Once achieved. the constituency then protects the environment created. The traditional method where nat ional or international entities analyze and then get governments to adopt some formal policies. often turns o ut to be a mere stopgap measure.

Summary Poverty leads to bad outcomes but reducing poverty is poss ible. How quickly we reduce it depends on the combination of choices we all make. A good mix of choices can deliver a Significant impact whereas a different m ix delivers less . Investor (donor) choice on what and how-and not JUSt how much-development is financed is an important pre requ isite to the impact we achieve. High COSt food <lid programs versus lower COSt sustai ned development programs or eve n foo d-aid路ta-development programs are a glaring examp le of critical options in poverty reduction. The phenomenal impact de livered via biocontrol programs in Africa was achieved for a miniscule fraCtion of food a id costs. Biocontrol measures required no costly inputs or effective. expens ive. or sometimes nonexistent. support programs. But such knowledge-intensive systems require susuined research-for-development support. Implementing e ntities. such as UTA and its national and regional partners. also have to make choices that contribute to poverty allevia t ion all along t he research-for-development continuum. It is not enough to paSSively purs ue scientific curiosity. The definition of the objectives we pursue and the research and methodologies we Opt for are all crucial to the effectiveness and degree of impact we have on reducing poverty. This exp licit recognition of the combined implications of our choices is at the heart of the strategy and its potential for success in achieving the first MDG. Bringing these choices together m an approach that focuses on local p roduc tion. wealth creation, and risk reduction. is a powerful instrument against hunger and poverty. The approach follows weU-tested paths. including the experience of failures. Its simplicity gives it a degree of robustness tha t has withstood several

tests. Because it is conceptual and decision-based. it is applicable over a wide range of circumsta nces. food systems and economic factors. By its des ign . it also gives farmers . the majority o f females . chi ldren. and consumers a higher degree of independence from external factors and a solid found.ltion for general economic progress . If we have to choose just one activity with which to address the first MDG of reducing extreme poverty <lnd hunger. we shou ld produce more food in ways that create wealth whi le ad dress ing producer risks.

You can email your comments to: p hartmann@cgiar.org . A

~presentat i on~

version with a few graphics is also available upon request. Informa tion about IITA

is available at. wwvv.i'ta .org

Endnotes 'The author is indebted to L Abraham. O . Coulibaly. D. Dalrymple. B. Hartmann. P. Neuenschwander. R. Ortiz and E. Tollens for their input and assistance. 2El even million people are food insec ure in t.he United States. See P. K. EIsinger. Toward an end to hunger in America . Brookings

Inltitute Press. 1998. 'Tribe. D. Feed ing and greening the world. (1994) CAB International. United Kingdom.

"The $ J dollar per day indicator carries connotations of "purchasingpower parity" and "global consumption bundl e," I worry about anything so defined .

!l.The official cause of death is rare ly the prima ry cause of death. Often

th e secondary or tertiary causes , such as pneumonia. are reported. "'The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on $0.75 per day, and

poor as living on $1 per day. 7See Michigan State Un iversity studies on SSA.

'Sch uh. G.E. Global Food Security. Also the works of Amartya Sen. ~P retoria Statement. Participants of the Internatlona! Conference on

Successes

African Agriculture . December 3,2003 .

'ORavallion . M . and Dan. G. World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 10. No. I.

Also E. Tollens. Working Paper No. 2003 /67. Sep 2002 . Il Tweeten. L. and Pinstrup.Anderson. P. The world food problem or the

1980 US Dept of Agriculture study on future world food balance . I' Pretty. J. Agriculture: Reconnecting People. Land . and Nature London:

Earthscan. 2002 " Preny. J. page 10 "FAOSTAT " Kherallah M.â&#x20AC;˘ Delgado. C. Gabre-Madhin . E.. Minot N .. and johnson. M. Reforming Agric ultural Markets in Africa . John~ Hopkins Press. 2002.

"N EPAD. IFPRI . CTA. and InWEnt. Successes in African Agriculture Conference Pape r #8 by Felix Nweke . 17Neuenschwander P. EcaÂˇfriendly integrated pest management: concept and implementuion in Africa. IITA publication 26/ 11/03 submitted to Science Magazine

IBPearce, Fred. Desert Harvest. New Scientist. Octobe r 2001 . liLJnlike some other legumes cowpea do not need to be inoculated to fix nitrogen. 2째Klu chesky, V. Russian philosopher. Russia's experience taught us that single-mi nded focus on economic polic ies grossly underestimates the poli(lcal. legal and institutional changes needed for progress. 21earr. S.J. A green re\lolution frus t rated: Lessons from the Malawi experience . African C rops Sciences Joumal. Vol. S. No.1. pp.93- 98. 1997. u Hausmann , R. and Rodrik , D, 2002. Economic development as selfdiscovery. Harvard University. Mimeo. Kenn edy School of Government. HChigunta. E. Herbert. R.. and Mkandawire. R. Nati onal environments for agricultural policy. Conference paper # 15. Successes in Afr ican agr iculture conference. Pretoria. South Africa. December 2003 . 24Eastcrly. W. and LeVine . R. Tropics, germs and crops: how endowments innuence e cono mic development. July 2002. 2~Catheri ne Pattil lo The effects of regime-switching uncertainty on irreversible in\lestment decisions . University of Oxford. 1996. Also Easterly. W. The lo st decades: Developing countries stagnation in spite of policy reform. Jo urnal of Economic Growth 6. 135- 157. 26Po rter-Novelli. Report on Tanzan ia Civil Service. 1998. ~JPretty. Jules. Agroec ology in Developing countries in Environment, November 2003 Vol. ~S #9. 28Hartmann. P. 2003 . Keynote address to the International Society of Tropical Tuber Crops, Symposium 2003. Arusha. Tanzania. ~otf. R. D. The critique of economic policy. Post-autistic economics review, Issue no. 22. 24 November 2003. article 4. lOBhalocra. S. and Healy C. Discuss ion Paper No. 0125. p.31. October 200 I. World Bank. )lln 2002, President Obasanjo of N igeria. without any fanfare or formal "pot icy", merely set the tone about the importance of agriculture to his country. The effect has been magical.

AboutliTA The Intemationallnstitute of Tropkal Agriculture (IITAl was founded in

1967 as an international agricultural research institute wkh a mandate for improving food production in the humid tropics and to develop sustainable production systems. It became the first African link in the worldwide network of agricultural research centers known as the Consu~ative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIARl, fomned in 1971. IITA's mission is to enhance the food security, income, and wen-being of resource-poor people primarily in the humid and subhumid zones of sub-Saharan Africa, by conducting research and related aaivities to increase agrkultural produaion, improve food systerns, and sustainably manage natural resources, in partnership with national and international stakeholders.To this end, IITA conducts research, gennplasm conservation, training, and infonnation exchange activities in partnership with regional bodies and national programs induding universities, NGOs, and the private sector. The research agenda addresses crop improvement plant health, and resource and crop management within a food systems framework and is targeted at the identified needs of three maier agroecological zones: the savannas, the humid forests, and the mklaltitudes. Research focuses on smallholder cropping and postharvest systems and on the folowing food crops: cassava, cowpea, maize, plantain and banana, soybean, and yam.