Title: Ending hunger in Africa
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00085345/00001
 Material Information
Title: Ending hunger in Africa
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Hazell, Peter B. R.
Publisher: International Food Policy Research Institute,
Publication Date: 1967
Copyright Date: 2002
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00085345
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: 122312882 - OCLC

Full Text

Only the Small Farmer Can Do It

n contrast to.popular.predictions.ofAfrica's worsening.economicTdecline,

recent research supports an -lternative and more positive visionofAfrica's

future. New poliica *m 1 and African.ownership of the development

agenda, ombinedwith a enewed..cus.on.nd.invetments.i.............e
agriculture,~~~~~~~~~ hav th poeta tohl rrvretecurnonadsia
of hnepvryeviromna erdtodsae n ii tieuligo

lessos leaned fom pst poicy ad impemenationmistaes,.tis.plicy.rief.rgue


appropriate social and economic policies, natural disasters,
and civil strife have all contributed to the deteriorating
conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa today. A staggering one-third
of the population is malnourished. Childhood mortality rates
are among the highest in the developing world. Eighty percent
of all Africans live on a daily income of less than US$2; nearly
half struggle to survive on US$I a day or less.

Despite the projected increases in mortality resulting from
infectious diseases,African population growth rates remain
among the highest in the world. Hunger and poverty interact
to fuel a vicious downward spiral that limits people's ability to
grow or purchase food.These conditions exacerbate
environmental degradation, conflict, and the spread of
HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.Africa is the only
continent where hunger and poverty are projected to worsen
in the next decade. New and continuing crises appear likely to
further disrupt agriculture, create refugees, escalate the need
for and costs of emergency relief, and divert investment from
the long-term solutions Africa so desperately needs to end its
cycle of despair.


improving the poor performance of Africa's stagnating
agricultural sector, in recent decades one of the worst in the
world, is the key to solving the problems of hunger and
poverty.Agriculture remains the foundation of most African
economies and African peoples' livelihoods. But although
agriculture accounts for 70 percent of full-time employment in
Africa, 33 percent of its total gross domestic product (GDP),
and 40 percent of its total export earnings, productivity has
stalled. Per capital output of staple foods continues to fall, and
the continent is steadily losing its world market shares for
major export crops like coffee, tea, and cocoa.

Where African governments have actively supported new
investments in agriculture and rural development, these
worrisome trends have started to turn around. In Uganda, for
example, when political leaders embraced new agricultural
programs in the 1990s, they were able to reduce rural poverty
from 50 to 35 percent. In the past, development practitioners
erroneously believed that small farmers were unwilling to
change their traditional farming practices, but many studies
now prove that small farmers respond to meaningful incentives.

During the 1980s, Zimbabwe experienced a
smallholder Green Revolution in maize and sorghum
production.Yields more than doubled, with 95
percent of crop area planted with improved
varieties.Although the government could not sustain
its catalyzing investments in infrastructure and
support, the experience demonstrates both the
desire and capability of smallholders to adopt new
practices to improve yields.

IFPRI's global food model projections to 2015 show
that a smallholder-led agricultural transformation of
Africa is technically and economically feasible.These
projections illustrate three visions of the future: (I)
a baseline,"business as usual" scenario; (2) a
pessimistic scenario; and (3) an optimistic scenario
(see Figures 1, 2, and 3).The baseline scenario
assumes that governments and donors would
maintain their investments in agriculture at current
levels.As a result,Africans' total consumption of
staple foods and meat would about double by 2015,
with most of the needed increases in food supply
coming from domestic African production as
farmers improved yields and modestly expanded
cropped areas. Per capital incomes would increase by
22 percent, and per capital daily calorie consumption
would increase from 2,232 to 2,387 kilocalories.
Nevertheless, although the proportion of
malnourished children would decrease by 2015, the
total number of malnourished children would
increase by more than 5 million to 37.9 million.

The pessimistic scenario assumes a modest decline
in public investment in agriculture, with correspond-
ing decreases in the growth rates for crop and
livestock yields and a 50 percent decline in GDP
growth.As population growth outstripped people's
ability to pay for staple foods and meat, per capital
consumption of calories would fall to 2,167 kilo-
calories per day. Per capital incomes would also fall by
1 I percent, and the number of malnourished children
would increase to 45.8 million. Even at these lower
consumption levels,Africa would have to import
significantly more cereals, roots, and tubers by 2015.

The optimistic scenario, by contrast, assumes that
governments and donors modestly increase their
investments in agriculture and make a greater
commitment to policy reform. Crop and livestock
yields would rise between 3 and 4 percent per year,
and GDP would grow by 8 percent per year in
some subregions.Africans would demand 20 to 30
percent more staple foods than in the baseline, and
their meat consumption would increase another 56
percent. Per capital consumption of calories would
rise to 2,990 kilocalories per day, and the number of

Figure I Per capital income in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1997 and 2015

1,000 -



. 600
400 338 6
.E 200 -,-

1997 Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic
2015 2015 2015

SOURCE: IMPACT simulations, IFPRI, 2002.

Figure 2 Per capital daily caloric demand in Sub-Saharan Africa,
1997 and 2015

S4,000 -

a 3,000 -
U 2,232 2,3 2,167
2,000- N


1997 Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic
2015 2015 2015

SOURCE: IMPACT simulations, IFPRI, 2002.

Figure 3 Numbers of malnourished children in Sub-Saharan Africa,
1997 and 2015
S 50 45.8





l I M I l
Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic
2015 2015 2015

SOURCE: IMPACT simulations, IFPRI, 2002.

malnourished children would drop to 23.4 million (a 40
percent reduction below the baseline projection for 2015). Per
capital incomes would rise to almost three times the baseline
levels.African production could supply the additional food
needed through faster yield growth, and food imports in 2015
would actually total less than under the baseline scenario.

Of course, this transformation would require additional
investments in agriculture from the donor community and
committed African leadership.The optimistic scenario requires
an additional investment in agriculture and rural development
(beyond current and projected allocations) of US$5 billion per
year until 2015.These investment levels depart sharply from
recent trends. For years, public investment in agriculture has
been falling, not rising.World Bank lending for agriculture
declined dramatically between 1980 and 2000, from about 31
percent of its total lending portfolio in 1979-81 to less than 10
percent in 1999-2000. Similarly, from fiscal year 1992 to 1997,
USAID reduced its funding to agriculture programs from 10
percent of its total obligations to only 5 percent. It cut
agricultural investments in Sub-Saharan Africa during that period
by 57 percent, to about US$80 million (USAID Report to
Congress on Title XII 1998). By 2000,African agriculture
received less U.S. development assistance than any other sector.


The dramatic political and economic realignments caused by
globalization over the past decade have caused many
changes in Africa that offer new opportunities for agricultural
growth. First, many African countries are more firmly committed
to reducing hunger and poverty than at any other time in the
past. For the first time since independence, continent-wide and
subregional perspectives on development solutions are gaining
strength and visibility.This shift toward greater ownership of the
development agenda opens the door for more countries to
benefit from greater economic integration and to capture
spillover benefits from the exchange of technology and
information. For example, the New Partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD) is a promising initiative among African
leaders that concretely reflects the continent-wide commitment
to ownership of future development priorities.And African
countries are negotiating regional trading arrangements that
offer new possibilities for exploiting regional dynamics, such as
the Southern Africa Development Cooperation (SADC) free
trade area, launched in September 2000.

Second, various African governments are experimenting with
institutional innovations to improve the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of the public services they finance. For example, in
Tanzania, local district governments are jointly managing road
maintenance and rehabilitation in partnership with the private
sector under a USAID rural roads program. Since 1998 the

project has successfully completed more than 530 miles of
rural roads in 23 districts, reducing transportation costs by an
average of 40 percent.

Third, governments are increasingly devolving authority to the
local level, allowing rural communities to identify both local
needs and appropriate solutions. For example, communities are
seeking ways to capture the economic benefits of marketing
new products developed from local resources or of collecting
royalties on indigenous biodiversity materials.The SANProTA
marketing initiative organizes 30 rural producer groups from
five southern African countries to support the manufacture and
sale of environmentally friendly natural products to regional
and international markets.

Finally,African countries are committing to more liberal trade
and marketing policies, and with donor support governments
have begun to create the conditions necessary for a dynamic
business and private sector.The dismantling of state
agricultural cooperatives, for instance, allows private
businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
community-based organizations (CBOs) to provide agricultural
credit, input, and marketing services.

These policy changes, together with new market opportunities
in the global economy, can maximize the benefits to African
farmers of increased agricultural productivity. Changes in
consumer demand in developed countries are increasing the
markets for high-quality niche products such as organic
foods, as well as for year-round supplies of fruits and
vegetables. Reform of developed-country agricultural
protectionism will increase market opportunities even further.
In short, with appropriate institutional and policy support,
African agriculture is poised to enhance its comparative
advantage in its historical export crops and new, higher-value
horticultural, aquacultural, floricultural, and specialty products in
today's world markets.


historical missteps in past agricultural development efforts
have made African policymakers and donors skeptical
about achieving ambitious goals and dramatically increasing
investments.They need to be convinced of the viability of new
approaches.To be successful,Africa now needs a different
approach for development-one that builds on an
understanding of past mistakes and that addresses in an
integrated way the pressing economic, social, and environmental
problems facing the continent in the 21st century.

A growing consensus asserts that new approaches must depend
less on direct interventions by national governments and more
on participatory approaches, civil society, market forces, and key
partnerships between stakeholders. Governments, instead of
undertaking activities that others might better implement, will

.5-M 5A M1 -N M0

structure the environment in which other agents can efficiently
operate, and will provide only those public goods and services
that cannot be contracted to others. By establishing conducive
legal, governance, and institutional arrangements (including
decentralization), national and regional economic policies will
provide enabling economic incentives for other stakeholders to
operate. NGOs, CBOs, and some private agents and specialized
government agencies can then work together to support
community and farmer development activities and help
disadvantaged groups gain greater access to resources and
markets.Analysis of past development efforts points to several
common areas for future action.

Smallholder agriculture, which is the predominant source of
livelihoods in Africa, has proven to be at least as efficient as
larger farms when farmers have received similar support
services and inputs (seeds, fertilizer, and credit). Policies to
improve marketing and service arrangements can insure that
small farmers are not disadvantaged in access to markets,
technologies, credit, and inputs. Small farmers need to be better
organized to purchase inputs in larger volumes and to gain
access to markets for their products. Producer cooperatives
and CBOs can play a key role here, as can vertical contracting
arrangements within marketing chains organized with large
private-sector firms.Agricultural research systems must also
give priority to the problems of small farmers.

Raising the output of small farmers would not only increase
their incomes and food security, but would also lower national
food prices, stimulate the rest of the economy, and reduce
poverty. Each I-percent increase in agricultural productivity in
Africa has been shown to reduce poverty by 0.6 percent.
Stated differently, a I-percent increase in yields can help 6
million more people raise their incomes above US$1 per day.
At this rate, a smallholder-led growth strategy could lead to
huge cuts in Africa's rural poverty within a couple of decades.

Providing sustainable support to women farmers will be a
critical element of any new smallholder-led development effort.
Women, who supply more than 70 percent of agricultural labor
in Sub-Saharan Africa, have historically been agricultural
innovators and the providers of family care and nutrition.Yet
agricultural researchers, extension workers, and credit
providers have long neglected women's needs.When women
obtain the same levels of education, experience, and farm
inputs as men, they produce significantly higher yields in a range
of farming systems. Designing gender-sensitive agricultural
projects is a win-win strategy for reducing hunger in Africa.

Inadequate investments in rural development have taken a
severe toll on the provision of infrastructure and services.The
road system in Africa today is only a fraction of what India had
decades ago and leaves about 70 percent of its farmers poorly

connected to markets. Many farmers can neither procure
fertilizers and other inputs at affordable prices nor market
their own products effectively. Similarly, poor access to health
and education services diminishes agricultural productivity,
contributes to the spread of infectious diseases, and locks rural
people into a poverty trap.

To avoid constructing expensive infrastructure systems that
might be difficult to maintain, current thinking recommends
focusing on lower-cost strategies using new technologies, such
as satellite and mobile phone communication and wind and
solar power. Encouraging greater local ownership of investments
through cofinancing arrangements and devolving responsibility
for maintenance to local governments and communities would
solve many previous problems associated with upkeep.

New communications and information technologies such as
mobile telephones and Internet access also offer exciting new
opportunities. By facilitating the rapid and timely exchange of
knowledge and information, they accelerate the spread of
improved technologies within rural communities and help get
up-to-date market information to those who need it most-
farmers and entrepreneurs.

It is widely recognized that the market reforms so far enacted
have been necessary but not sufficient to generate greater
agricultural production and competitiveness in export markets.
Market liberalization removed major distortions but did little
to ensure that small-scale farmers, particularly those without
easy access to roads and markets, could benefit. Even in areas
close to export and domestic markets, incomplete or
inconsistent reforms have produced mixed results. If farmers
are to benefit from the market reforms, then they will need to
see improved access to markets and lower marketing costs.
The weakness of rural markets is partly a problem of poor
infrastructure, particularly roads and communications systems,
but problems with quality standards, timing, market

...... "
: ., .- ..... i' '.',, ,. : ;.,=; ..i'' /' ,,; ", ,;: ; ".. ,.- .:[' ; Z: ', ". .",.';.[-
,: ,'.'; ,. .... ,,, ... "Z ? ,. !., ''.: ;'.".:,, '.., ...!. ,'...,,' '.,.. .,,'." .,,"" ; ": ,. .

information, and assured supplies are also penalizing local
products in both domestic and international markets.The
private sector could play a larger role if it were not also
constrained by some of these same factors, as well as by weak
legal and financial institutions.These constraints provide a rich
and legitimate agenda for the public sector to address, but one
using policy to promote private sector activity rather than
supplying marketing and input supply services itself.
World markets are far more integrated today than ever before,
and the volume of world agricultural trade has more than
doubled since 1981. Given its natural comparative advantage in
producing many export crops,Africa should, with the right mix
of domestic market reforms and institutional and infrastructure
investments, be able to reclaim larger market shares.

Agricultural yields in Africa are low compared with those in
other countries with similar agroclimatic conditions. Neither land
nor labor productivity has changed much over the past 30 years.
Some on-the-shelf technologies might be more widely adopted if
supported by access to credit, inputs, market reforms, and
infrastructure. In other cases, sustained productivity will require
new technologies supported by higher investments. Currently,
African countries spend on average only 0.85 percent of their
agricultural GDP on research, a much lower figure than the 2.6
percent averaged by industrialized countries.

Research on crop genetics to improve drought tolerance, uti-
lization of plant nutrients, food nutrient content, and pest and
disease resistance has produced favorable returns to invest-
ment in the past. Returns to public agricultural research invest-
ments in Africa have averaged more than 40 percent, which
match levels elsewhere in the world. Sustained growth in pro-
ductivity will depend upon continued improvements in crop
germplasm and improved nutritional value of staple foods (such
as vitamin A-fortified rice and iron-fortified maize), as well as
crop and livestock disease and pest control. Some of the most
promising gains in these areas may come from new biotechnol-
ogy research for rainfed farming systems.

Researchers are also looking to improved natural resource
management practices and small-scale irrigation for major pro-
ductivity improvements. Natural resource management can
improve soil fertility, allowing fertilizers and improved crop
varieties to generate higher yields. Small-scale irrigation, includ-
ing water capture at the micro-watershed level and the sustain-
able development of some carefully chosen wetland areas,
could significantly raise productivity. Building on local knowl-
edge can address the diversity of African environmental micro-
climatic zones. Improved natural resource management meth-
ods are also key to increasing yields in low-external input farm-
ing. Conservation tillage and vegetative barriers to harvest
water and contain soil erosion are examples of techniques that
benefit the many areas with poor access to modern inputs.
These measures are available at prices farmers can afford.

Greater gains from research will also depend upon reforming
Africa's national agricultural research institutes.These organiza-
tions must forge stronger links to other stakeholders, from
farmer groups to universities.A related challenge is to link for-
mal research more effectively with grassroots efforts. Other
necessary reforms include firming up the scope and level of
government support, increasing institutional autonomy including
decentralized control of resources, and improving ties to the
private sector. Smaller national programs can overcome their
size limits by linking with regional and subregional networks of
R&D programs to work on common problems.

Producer and community-based organizations have partially
filled the gap left by the retreat of government agricultural and
social services.The private sector is a growing and capable
player linking larger-scale commercial farmers with markets,
while CBOs are filling an important parallel need for small-
holders.These organizations provide the links between farm-
ers and businesses in food processing, manufacturing, trading,
and food outlets, and they provide important services such as
credit. Effective producer organizations can empower the rural
poor and add to the social capital of a community, invigorating
natural resource management and stimulating greater partici-
pation in local decisionmaking processes.The most effective
organizations are voluntary, economically viable, self-sustaining,
self-governing, transparent, and responsive to community and
producer groups.

Knowledgeable and well-trained people and effective institutions
are critical for achieving agricultural growth. Public and private
institutions tailored for the new economies will need to manage
public policy to support agricultural development; attract and
mobilize investments; provide technical services to the agricul-
tural sector (such as research, product certification, and inspec-
tions); provide access to agricultural training and education; and
enforce contracts, laws, and property rights.

Effective institutions will also require an adequate supply of
trained people, including agricultural policy advisers, agricultural
researchers, extension workers, business managers, and finan-
cial and computer experts. Past training programs increased
the supply of these personnel, but retirements, low salaries,
poor morale, and HIV/AIDs have contributed to current chron-
ic staffing shortages. New programs should be attentive to
including women and other marginalized groups. Encouraging
more participatory approaches to development goes hand in
hand with stronger local government and community organiza-
tions, and a greater willingness on the part of governments to
transfer authority and resources to these organizations.

Institutions supporting farmers' secure tenure over land, water,
grazing, and forests are essential to farmers' ability to pursue


r V.


sustainable livelihoods and make long-term investments in
improving and conserving resources. Many indigenous land
tenure systems provide reasonable tenure security and can
evolve to accommodate changing needs as population and
commercialization pressure increase. In these cases, governments
may appropriately strengthen or adjust existing systems (perhaps
to improve women's access to property rights or their tenure
security) rather than seek to impose new systems.

The most successful institutions for managing common proper-
ties are likely to be local organizations run by resource users
themselves. Governments need to recognize local rights to
manage and use common property and need to provide train-
ing in property management as necessary, ensuring that poor
people are adequately represented.

Broad-based agricultural growth centered on small farms could
make deep inroads into poverty and hunger in Africa. But to
reach the poorest people, often the landless and near landless,
targeted interventions and effective safety nets are also critical.
Because the poorest segments of the population have complex
livelihood strategies, investments in agriculture alone are not
sufficient to improve their conditions.The most important tar-
geted interventions for the poor are those that increase their
health and education and their access to assets, especially land.
Better health, more education, and tenure security not only
empower the poor in their dealings with others, but also reduce
their vulnerability and provide safety nets in times of crisis.

Land degradation and the unsustainable use of natural resources
are limiting the potential for agricultural development in Sub-
Saharan Africa and leading to losses of important environmental
services, such as watershed protection and maintenance of
biodiversity. Governments, NGOs, CBOs, and the private sector
all have roles to play in encouraging farmers to adopt better

strategies for managing natural resources. Farming communities
also need support in organizing for collective action on
environmental issues. One common solution relies on
government regulation of resource management practices, but
this is rarely effective. Newer approaches rely on local
organizations for collective action and on the use of emerging
markets for environmental services (for example, paying for
carbon sequestration in forests and farmlands) to reward
farmers for environmental protection efforts.

Many donor agencies now understand the multidimensional
nature of poverty.They realize that to maximize impact on
rural livelihoods and agricultural growth, new investments in
agriculture must integrate health care, education, and family
assistance. Increasing the participation of communities in
designing and implementing such multisectoral approaches can
enhance the success of both relief and longer-term
development assistance efforts.

From analysis of past efforts, we know that in developing
African agriculture for the 21st century, no one-size-fits-all
strategy will do.The common elements, already described, need
to be crafted into national and regional development plans
tailored to specific local environmental, political, and cultural

USAID, for example, has designed a workable program for its
own efforts (see box) that may serve as a valuable guide to
other donors.To ensure success, these new development

investments to support agricultural growth are planned for three subregions: East,West, and Southern
Africa. Each regional action plan will link to and harmonize with national action plans in selected high-
potential countries that are also expected to serve as nodes of agriculture-led growth within their subregions.
All action plans will describe the process by which investment priorities and related analytical agendas will be
developed, fine-tuned, and acted upon. USAID describes the action plans as documents that will include a 15-
year vision of the initiative, specific programmatic thrusts for a five-year planning cycle, and annual work plans
and targeted outputs.They are expected to be "rolling" planning documents that will also provide monitoring
and evaluation information in accordance with a results framework established in the first action plan. Each
plan will assess the likely impacts of the proposed investments on (I) overall economic and agricultural
growth, (2) agricultural trade, (3) intraregional trade, (4) spillover effects through intraregional linkages in
commodity and factor markets, and (5) regional growth, development, and hunger and poverty reduction.

strategies to support agriculture will reflect a dynamic planning
and learning process, strengthening both country and donor
capacity for this type of work.They will require rigorous data
collection, analysis, and planning; effective monitoring and
evaluation systems; and a capacity to revise and adapt plans
over time.The evolution of modern information systems,
computing power, and scientific methods have opened up
whole new opportunities for collecting and using information
in intelligent and useful ways. National capacities to undertake
this kind of work have also improved.The remaining challenge
is to find institutional mechanisms through which this
information and knowledge can be better linked to the work of
planners within key government and donor agencies.

Why should donors commit to a new initiative to support
African agriculture? Investing in diversified, smallholder-led
agriculture will reduce the continent's food insecurity, child
malnutrition, and severe poverty. It will provide an engine of
growth with spillover effects to the most vulnerable and
poorest rural populations by lowering the cost of food and
creating employment both on and off the farm. Shifting more of
the funding for Africa toward promoting trade rather than aid
holds the potential to benefit all of the participating economic
actors-African smallholders, consumers, and governments as
well as donors and consumers in the industrialized world-by
offering new markets and greater economic and political
stability. Lending wide donor support to programs such as the
Agricultural Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa is an excellent
step in the right direction.

The alternative-not investing in African agriculture-would
lead to intolerable outcomes within a few years.With business
as usual, poverty, food insecurity, and child malnutrition will
worsen significantly in Africa. Resources will become more
degraded, and land productivity will decline further in many
areas. Global climate change will exacerbate local climate
variability and increase the frequency and severity of natural
disasters among vulnerable populations. Crises and conflicts
will increase, leading to escalating costs of relief.Already the
cost of disaster assistance is becoming a major financial burden
for many governments and donors.

In the early 1960s Africa was the continent of hope and Asia
the continent of despair.Asia has shown what can be done.
Now Africa must move forward. Creating a more positive
future will require not only a realignment of priorities to
emphasize agricultural growth by African policymakers, but
also a major commitment of new funds to agriculture by the
donor community.

This brief, prepared by IFPRI staff Peter Hazell and Michael
Johnson, is based on "Cutting Hunger in Africa Through
Smallholder-led Agricultural Growth," an IFPRI technical paper
in support of USAID's Agricultural Initiative to Cut Hunger in
Africa (AICHA), 2002.The paper is available at IFPRI's AICHA
webpage . Other
suggested readings are listed below.

Alston,J. M., C. Chan-Kang, M. C. Marra, P. G. Pardey, and T.J.
Wyatt, A Meto-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D:
Ex Pede Herculem?, Research Report No. 113 (IFPRI,
Washington, DC, 2000).

Bingen, R. J., and D.W. Brinkerhoff, Agricultural Research in Africa
and the Sustainable Financing Initiative: Review, Lessons and
Proposed Next Steps, SD Publication Series,Technical Paper
No. 112 (Office of Sustainable Development, USAID Africa
Bureau,Washington, DC, 2000).

Kherallah, M., C. Delgado, E. Gabre-Madhin, N. Minot, and M.
Johnson, Reforming Agricultural Markets in Africa (The Johns
Hopkins University Press for IFPRI, Baltimore, Md., USA,

Kindness, H., and A. Gordon, Agricultural Marketing in
Developing Countries: The Role of NGOs and CBOs, Policy
series No.13 (Social and Economic Development
Department, Natural Resources Institute. University of
Greenwich, London, UK, 2002).

Mosley, P., A Painful Ascent:The Green Revolution in Africa
(London: Routledge, forthcoming 2003).

Pretty, J., I. Guijt, I. Scoones, and J.Thompson, Sustainable
Agriculture Impacts on Food Production and Challenges for Food
Security, Gatekeeper Series SA 60 (International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, 1992).

Successes in African Agriculture:A Synthesis of Emerging
Themes, Criteria, and Determinants of Success, an ongoing
IFPRI project. .

Copyright 2002 International Food Policy Research Institute.All rights
reserved. Sections of this document may be reproduced without the express
permission of, but with acknowledgment to, the International Food Policy
Research Institute.


2033 K Street, NW,Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA
STEL +1-202-862-5600 FAX +1-202-467-4439
IFPRI1 EMAIL ifpri@cgiar.org WEB www.ifpri.org

IFPRI is a

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs