|
LIVELIHOOD, FOOD SECURITY AND DIVERSITY
IN LIMITED REOSURCE, LANDED HOUSEHOLDS
Peter E. Hildebrand and Amy J. Sullivan
Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida
Gainesville FL 32611-0240
2001 Peter E. Hildebrand
LIVELIHOODS, FOOD SECURITY AND DIVERSITY
IN LIMITED RESOURCE, LANDED HOUSEHOLDS
Peter E. Hildebrand and Amy J. Sullivan
Yet it is clear that within the limits of the next decade peasant
labor farms will, nevertheless remain an unalterable fact in
numerous countries, including the U.S.S.R. We who are concerned
with the practice of agriculture must construct its future forms
from the existing forms of peasant farming; therefore, we are, in
practice, concerned with the deepest possible study of the
peasant farm. A.V. Chayanov, 1925
Most of those who are today seeking to understand the
economic behavior of the peasantry seem to be unaware that they
are traversing much the same ground trod from the 1860s onward by
several generations of Russian economists. D. Thorner, 1966
Understanding the system is important for identifying problems.
It is even more important for shaping solutions.
Michael Collinson, 1998
As we begin the third millennium, nearly a century and a half from the
time Russian economists began studying peasant farms, we still appear at a
loss as to how these farms function, remaining on the edge of poverty and
struggling for food security, yet continuing to survive. The only
explanation is that we have not made a concerted effort to really try to
understand these farms even though they have been and continue to be one of
the most important single sectors in most countries of the world, and,
perhaps, in the entire world. In 1936, Whittlesey (quoted in Mosher, 1969)
estimated that "subsistence farms" supported about 60% of humankind (about
1.6 billion people). Wharton (1969) estimated (presumably in the mid 1960s)
that subsistence farms covered some 40% of the cultivated land of the world
and supported 50-60% of humankind. While the number of subsistence farms
today is not well estimated, various estimates still place it between one and
two billion. According to the UN's International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), in the year 2000, 75% of the world's 1.2 billion
"extremely poor" are rural. This accounts for about 900 million people who
are the poorest segment of limited resource rural households. If these
"extremely poor" were half to two-thirds of the limited resource rural
households in the world, this would mean between 1.35 and 1.8 billion people
are surviving in limited resource rural households. No matter the estimate,
these households are still a very important part of society and the food
production systems of the world.
Chayanov and other Russian economists recognized that the "deepest
possible study of the peasant farm" required a multidisciplinary approach.
Starting about mid way through the 20t century we abandoned a
multidisciplinary, whole farm perspective in favor of a highly specialized
and reductionist scientific approach to agricultural development. Commercial
crops were left to agronomists, animals to animal scientists, and forests to
foresters, few of whom understood people, while costs and returns were left
to economists, and peasants to anthropologists, few of whom understood
farming.
Over the last 15 to 20 years at the University of Florida a group of
faculty and their graduate students from several multidisciplinary programs
have been working together to modify the reductionist pattern. The impetus
for these activities was based in the Farming Systems, Agroforestry, and
Tropical Conservation and Development Programs. Participation has come from
such diverse disciplines as Agricultural Economics, Agronomy, Animal Science,
Anthropology, Forestry, Geography, Latin American Studies, Political Science,
Soil Science and Wildlife. Studies have been conducted in many countries,
mostly in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. While the specific nature
of each of the studies has been as diverse as the interests of the students
and faculty involved in them, because of the frequent interaction in country
and on campus of those involved, we became more and more aware of emerging
commonalities. First, virtually all the studies involved both natural
resources and the people who used them. We also began to realize that food
security and sustainable livelihoods were the primary concerns of most of the
people who were subjects of our research and for whom the "farm" was not just
a production unit, but first and foremost a home.
The use of averages and aggregated data by development agencies in
attempts to reach broadly adaptable solutions simply masks the nature of the
situations and conditions in which these smallholders produce or earn their
food and other necessities. In order to help solve the continuing scourge of
food insecurity in ever more fragile livelihood systems in the world, the
tremendous diversity in which smallholders produce food for a significant
portion of the world's population must be taken directly into account. As we
have begun to analyze the impact of the dynamics of family development and
associated very diverse changes in household composition, we have been able
to see that averaging these even for a community shifts family development to
conditions of lower stress (more food secure) than most households actually
exhibit. Conclusions based on these lower stress, composite households will
inevitably distort reality and lead to unanticipated and undesirable results.
Smallholders and Food Security
Food insecurity (in its simplest form: not always being able to count
on having enough food to meet locally acceptable levels of consumption)
results from various factors that differentially affect diverse groups of
both rural and urban people. In order to analyze food security issues, and
to make sensible recommendations to alleviate food insecurity, it is
necessary first to define the category being addressed. Distinguishable
categories of potentially food insecure include 1) urban poor, 2) rural
landless, and 3) rural people with access to land, either as farmers
(including both crop and livestock products) or as extractivists. For our
purposes, access to bodies of water for fishing is considered as being
landed. Within the third category, which is the group of interest to us
here, are three sub types of households that must be distinguished: 1) those
whose resources at any moment in time generally allow them to produce a
surplus beyond socially acceptable minimum livelihood and food security
levels; 2) those whose resources at any point in time generally or always are
insufficient to allow them to reach socially acceptable minimum livelihood
and food security levels and therefore suffer chronic shortages (probably
being the "extremely poor" in the IFAD report); and 3) an intermediate type
on the margin between sufficiency and insufficiency of resources. These are
not permanent categories-households can and do move from one to another as
they pass through different stages in their lives. Unfortunately, no good
data exist on the relative numbers of people or households usually found in
each of the three rural, landed categories (Barbara Huddleston, FAO, personal
communication). Nevertheless, there is certainly a large number of non-urban
households in the categories to be addressed. Beyond this designation, no
further effort will be expended on defining the target sectors, but it is
certain that they are the same as the group defined by the Russians as
peasants.
Poverty Proliferates Poverty
Even for the landed poor households who in their stage in life have the
resources generally, but not always, to achieve socially acceptable minimum
levels of livelihood, poverty proliferates poverty. Three factors exacerbate
the effect of the vortex that draws these poor into increasing poverty and
food insecurity. One is the need to produce many of the diverse things
needed for their livelihoods from their own resources even when specialized
production could increase the overall value or volume of their efforts.
Second, the inescapable need for cash for necessities not produced on the
farm, and often at specific times of the year, forces these people to direct
their resource use into activities that meet this need even if it reduces the
household's overall value or quantity of production. Third, in households
with many mouths to feed and the least amount of labor available (as with
young families with several young children), the household requires the most
nutritionally dense, and therefore most expensive diet, in terms of cash or
resource use. Later in life, when such households have adolescent children
they often move into a phase of relative abundance and low stress, and
relative food security, particularly if the older adolescents help in
production activities or free adult labor from reproduction activities so
they can participate in production tasks. Unfortunately, when households in
a community are averaged, the average family inevitably has adolescent
children so therefore does not reflect the high stress situation.
Specialization Versus Diversification
In commercial, family agriculture (that is, capitalized but not
industrialized agriculture) most efficient resource use, and therefore
highest profits are normally achieved by combining two or more activities in
the farm operation. Economists demonstrate this using what is called a
Production Possibilities Curve, Figure 1. When two enterprises (activities)
are combined on a relatively well-endowed family farm with abundant
resources, the opportunities curve bows away from the origin so the greatest
revenue obtainable from the resources of the farm is achieved with a
combination of the two enterprises. In Figure 1, by producing approximately
260 units of Product 1 and 380 units of Product 2, the combined value of the
two products would be approximately $820 if the price of Product 1 were $1.42
and the price of Product 2 were $1.00. This may reflect the case of the
consistent surplus category farmers above. Farmers in this category often
allocate their resources to the combination of enterprises that bring them
the greatest revenue. Food production is of secondary importance and some or
all is purchased with the income generated from the sale of products.
Production Possibilities
Abundant and Scarce Resource Farms
500 - ...- ..... .....
400 .. ...
S. Abund
S 300 .......
200 . Scarce
0 100 200 300 400 500
Product 2
Figure 1. Production possibilities curves and revenue lines
For farmers on the margin of food security, a number of factors
influence the nature of the production possibilities curves shown in Figure
1. The result can be the exact opposite of farmers in better resource
situations. To the extent that these farmers have access only to lower
quality resources (for example, steeplands as opposed to valleys), their
production functions shift downward, resulting in less product for the same
amount of input. Also, more of the resources on marginal farms are fixed in
quantity at the farm level (cannot be purchased, so cannot vary in quantity).
This means that as more enterprises or activities are undertaken, each of
them receives a smaller proportion of such scarce resources as manure, family
labor or management time, further reducing the level of productivity.i This
can result in an opportunities curve that bows toward the origin. In this
situation, the farmers would be better off (able to achieve more value from
their resources) by specializing in one enterprise rather than in
diversifying into two or more. For the same prices, the farmer with scarce
resources would be able to achieve more value (value of crop production would
be approximately $325) by producing only Product 2, Figure 1. But for these
farmers, food security and therefore food production is of primary
importance. To specialize, they would have to depend on the market, other
infrastructure such as transportation, a government that would assure them
relative stability, and confidence that they could sell their products and
purchase the quantity and quality of food they needed when they needed it and
for a reasonable price. Most of these conditions are missing for the
marginally food secure families considered here. For this reason, they are
virtually forced into enterprise diversification in order to assure
themselves an adequate diet. If the resource-restricted farmer illustrated
in Figure 1 needed at least 50 units of Product 1, then the shift of
resources from Product 2 would reduce production of Product 2 to about 175
units and the value of crop production would be only about $220. Thus,
forced diversification to achieve a nutritionally adequate diet for farmers
with a production possibilities curve that bows toward the origin means that
the combined value or quantity of crop and animal production they can achieve
is lower than otherwise might be possible. Thus, poverty proliferates
poverty. This effect is seen in most of the cases studied.
i A more complete explanation is in: Hildebrand, 1986.
The Need for Cash
Not all these households' food nor other of life's necessities are
acquired directly by production or extraction. Virtually all households in
the world at the end of the 20th Century require cash for such necessities.
(Chayanov recognized this need among the Russian peasants at the beginning of
the 20th Century.) This need further complicates the livelihood strategies
of farmers who are only marginally food secure. In some cases, cash
producing activities such as Brazil nut gathering in the Amazon must be
undertaken even if this activity competes with food production and produces
relatively little cash. These cash producing activities can take the form of
extraction, off farm work, hunting or fishing, or the production of something
like tobacco that cannot be used for food. Many sources of cash are from
non-traditional activities such as eco-tourism or previously unknown crops,
and shifts in labor demands among household members to carry out these non-
traditional activities can create additional burdens on certain members of
the household and reduce further the productivity of traditional food
sources. Again, poverty proliferates poverty.
Family Development and Household Composition
Among many other factors affecting food security of landed, rural
households is household composition. The following stylized figures are a
way to visualize the impact of these factors on food security. Consider a
couple just setting up a nuclear family household (in year zero). For a
short time, both husband and wife can work in production, or food and cash
acquiring activities, because the wife has a relatively limited number of
household duties without children. There are two mouths to feed and two
workers in the household to contribute to production activities and food
acquisition. However, as soon as the woman has a child, her duties shift
noticeably and she must spend more time in the home attending reproduction
activities. Thus, at the same time that the number of mouths to feed
increases, the work force available for production activities decreases
(Figure 2).
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years in Life Stage
-- Family Size Workers
-- Rel Nut Dens Req'd
Figure 2. Factors affecting production and consumption
Young children require a diet that has a higher nutrient density
(nutrients per kilogram dry weight) than adults (Figure 2). That is,
children require more proteins, minerals and vitamins per kilo of food eaten.
A diet rich in these nutrients (meat, milk, legumes) requires more labor
and/or more cash (either for inputs or purchased from the market) to acquire.
This means that even more effort must be put into the family food budget,
Figure 3, during the years when the woman must spend more time in
reproduction activities so less total labor is available to the household for
food production activities. One way of showing this food budget is by adding
nutrient density to number of people in the family, Figure 3.
Factors Affecting Food Security
10
. 6......... ..... -- .... .
S4
2 ..
....... .~.....
Factors Affecting Food Security
16
12 -
8 .. -----...... . .---
12
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years in Life Stage
e Family Size Workers
.-- Rel Nut Dens Req'd -e Food Budget
Figure 3. Food budget
The combined effects of an increasing number of mouths to feed,
increased nutrient density required in the diet, and reduced number of
workers in production activities, puts a great deal of stress on the
household during the first ten or so years of family development, Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Household food security stress related to life stage.
Stress here is measured as food budget index divided by the index of the
number of workers available for production activities and is similar in
concept to Chayanov's consumer-worker ratio. Stress is very low until the
Factors Affecting Food Security
30
25
205 -- ------
0 5 10 15 20 25
Years In UIf L l age---
-- Family Size Workers
-. Rel Nut Dens Req'd --. Food Budget
SStress on Household
first child is born. It peaks when there are a number of small children in
the household and only the two parents available for reproduction and
production activities. This can shift a household from food secure to food
insecure. Stress again declines as the oldest children begin to take on some
of the production and/or reproduction activities. Thus, the household can
shift again, from food insecure to food secure.
A number of factors can have a marked influence on these stylized
curves and may be variable for different cultures. For instance, if another
adult joins the household, many of the curves shift markedly. If the adult
is male, it usually affects the number of workers for production activities
as well as the number of mouths to feed. However, the relative shift in
production resources is probably greater than the shift in consumption
requirements. Also, the relative nutrient density of the diet shifts
downward. All these factors shift the stress curve downward at the point
when the adult enters the household. If the new adult is female, shifts
ordinarily will be distributed differently than if the adult were male. Also,
if the labor resource of the first child to reach adolescence is used to
enhance production activities, this can reduce the amount of stress and
enhance the recovery into a low stress phase, particularly if the male
adolescents help the father and the female adolescents help the mother.
While these figures are based on generalized situation, it is clear that in
high stress household compositions, poverty proliferates poverty.
Potential for Aggregate Analysis
Frustrating national and donor attempts to alleviate food insecurity
for these categories of households is their tremendous diversity-a necessary
strategy for these same households. The major donors and their food security
programs desire broad solutions, felt necessary for reasons of efficiency.
Almost universally this translates into the use of data averaged across a
community, watershed, county, region or even country. The same people who
advocate and understand the need for conservation of bio-diversity as a
critical component for sustainability often ignore livelihood diversity
across communities, watersheds, counties, regions or countries. The problem
related to a search for potential solutions to food insecurity is that an
"average" household of two adults and three children aged 7, 11 and 15, for
example, reflects the household composition of few, if any households in that
community. Based on Figure 4, the average household described above would be
coming out of the high stress phase and have resources available to consider
new options. They may have resources available, for example, to consider an
agroforestry program with fruit trees that might not come into production for
three or more years. Their discount rate for longer term potential income
may be sufficiently low, compared to a high stress household, that they view
favorably the use of current resources to provide for a higher level of
living in the foreseeable future. Using the average household as a basis for
making project decisions may lead to frustration on the part of the donors.
Likewise, using households that have recently moved out of the high stress
phase as examples of successful projects seriously overstates the impact such
programs have.
All of the factors described above can be incorporated in a linear
programming analysis of food security and many of the cases in our research
use this method of analysis. Seasonality of food and cash needs, and
household composition are the drivers of the livelihood strategies of these
categories of rural, landed households. Members of these households choose
their livelihood strategies to attempt to satisfy seasonal food and cash
needs within the constraints of the resources they have available to them.
By using linear programming models of livelihood systems, various
household compositions easily can be incorporated in an aggregate model
reflecting, for example, a community, that also can be aggregated to a larger
scale. But the larger scale can also reflect the diversity at the lower
scale so that technologies, projects and policies can be tailored for each of
the household types at the community level.
Ethnographic and Participatory Linear Programming
Our methodology is based upon recognizing and understanding the
structure of complex, local livelihood systems and the diverse
strategies of different households. This recognition and
understanding comes from:
Going to the field;
Using ethnographic and participatory methods and tools for data
collection;
Creating models that define existing livelihood systems;
Simulating the strategies of diverse households within a given
livelihood system;
Testing alternatives (e.g., technology or policy); and
Formulating responses and recommendations.
Recognition and understanding of diversity in limited resource
households depends on examining them from the appropriate point of
view, and choosing the appropriate level of analysis.
The appropriate point of view is that of an insider.
The appropriate level of analysis is the livelihood system.
Livelihood systems are the appropriate level of examination because
they naturally differentiate diversity by:
Ecology
Infrastructure
Culture
Accessibility to technology (e.g., tractors, irrigation).
These kinds of factors can impose a particular livelihood system on a
a group of households by governing, dictating or modifying the full
range of activities (crop and livestock production, crafts, off-farm
work, remittances, etc.) available to the individuals in the
households to contribute to its survival and well being. When the
livelihood system to be modeled has been selected, diverse kinds of
household composition subject to the system are included in linear
programming analyses. These multiple evaluations then represent the
diversity of strategies found in the livelihood system. By weighting
the kinds of household compositions analyzed, an aggregation
representing all households in the system can be achieved.
References
Hildebrand, P.E. (Ed). 1986. Perspectives on farming systems research and
extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Boulder.
Mosher, A.T. 1969. The development problems of subsistence farmers: A
preliminary review. Chap. 1 In: Wharton, Jr., C.R. (Ed). 1969. Subsistence
agriculture and economic development. Aldine, Chicago
Shanin, T. 1966. Chayanov's message: Illuminations, miscomprehensions, and
the contemporary "development theory." Forward In: Thorner, D., B. Kerblay
and R.E.F. Smith (Eds). 1966. A.V. Chayanov: The theory of peasant economy.
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Thorner, D. 1966. Chayanov's concept of peasant economy. Chap 2 In:
Thorner, D., B. Kerblay and R.E.F. Smith (Eds). 1966. A.V. Chayanov: The
theory of peasant economy. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Wharton, Jr., C.R. (Ed). 1969. Subsistence agriculture and economic
development. Aldine, Chicago.
|
RSS
