Incentivized Sustainable Farming for a Food Secure Future

Word count: 1538

For many individuals in developed nations, food security is not a pressing issue. Of

course, there are poor and impoverished, but there are policies put in place to offer aid. In

developing nations, however, the issue is a little more complex. Food insecurity in developing

countries is a serious issue that is being contributed to on multiple fronts. In developing nations,

food insecurity is a cycle that is hard to get out of. The longer the cycle continues, the more

resources will be consumed and irreparably misused. Policies are in place to offer aid, but

governmental bodies and donors often ignore the underlying causes of food insecurity

(Devereux, 2000). To properly work towards alleviating food insecurity, the cycle must come to

an end. Governments must put in place policy that both treats the symptoms and contributing

factors of food insecurity. To understand the best policy to do so, one must fully comprehend

food insecurity in developing nations: the causes, the effects, and past policies.

Food insecurity can be defined as “the lack of capability to produce food and to provide

access to all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life” (Asefa, pg. 65,

2003). Food insecurity has multiple contributing factors, but the most imminent is climate

change. Climate conditions have been changing and in many developing nations the crop

production cannot keep up. The increasing temperatures and declining rain fall is speculated to

drastically reduce the production of corn, wheat, rice, and other primary crops within the next

two decades (Brown & Funk, 2008). Food insecurity is receiving more attention at the present

time. More people are donating, but food insecurity will remain a concern for the next fifty years

and beyond because of declining crop yield, rising population, climate change, and water
scarcity. As a result of harshening climate conditions, farmers are taking drastic measure that

further contribute to environmental strife.

The regions that are food insecure are the regions that heavily rely on local produce in

which farmers consume and sell their products to thrive (Brown & Funk, 2008). Climate change

negatively impacts these farmers because, when they are producing less because of rising

temperatures, their income goes down and then prices rise to compensate. As a result of poor

crop production, individuals turn to poor farming techniques in an attempt to increase crop

outputs. Poor, unsustainable farming techniques include over farming the land, growing a single

crop (monoculture), and clearing out natural vegetation (“Desertification, Drought Affect One

Third of Planet, World’s Poorest People, Second Committee Told as It Continues Debate on

Sustainable Development | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases,” 2012). The effects of these

practices can be seen in deforestation and desertification in Asia, Africa, and Latin America

(Barnaby, 1987). Developing nations are pushing the existing land far past it’s limits causing

more food insecurity in the long-run. To stop this cycle, developing nations must work towards

maintaining the integrity of the land before the effects are irreversible. Instead of doing this

however, developing countries are enacting policies that move away from agriculture while also

making individuals more reliant on food aid than ever before.

In India, they enacted a Food for Work program. The focus of the program was to give

wages/food in exchange for labor relating to water conservation, drought proofing, and land

development (Department of Rural Development, 2004). The labor targets were chosen to lessen

the environmental and societal factors that contribute to food insecurity. In the past, they had

given the food insecure individuals food as wages or a low enough wage that only the truly

desperate would participate and seek out the work (Barrett & Clay, 2003). This was supposed to
supplement pay and help to alleviate food insecurity. However, with the plan’s formation, it led

to those individuals being reliant on the job given to them but still needing to work more to

purchase other necessities of living (Barrett & Clay, 2003). Similar plans have been enacted in

other developing countries, with similar results and shortcomings. However, the idea can be

changed to better shape a more agrarian society where agricultural work would need to be the

focus.

To work to alleviate food insecurity brought about by bad farming tactics a “food for

sustainable farming techniques” program should be enacted in agrarian developing countries.

Ethiopia would be the best country to test this approach and begin the program as Ethiopia’s

economy is largely made up of smallholder agriculture, employing 89% of the labor force and

contributing 56% of GDP in 1997 (Devereux, 2000). Rural Ethiopia is also uniquely

homogenous: small farmers account for over 90% of total crop area and agricultural output

(Devereux, 2000). This being said, Ethiopia is a country that stands to gain the most from

practicing proper farming techniques, as a large portion of their livelihood is smallholder

farming. If Ethiopian farmers could be incentivized to change their current farming tactics, food

insecurity brought on by land erosion, desertification, and floods could be alleviated.

Improper farming techniques harm food security overall and those individuals that are

food insecure cannot afford to change their practices for long-term gain. However, sustainable

farming is critical for “food production, livelihood security, health and the maintenance of

ecosystems” (Thrupp, pg. 1, 2000). Sustainable farming is crucial for future welfare, but by

using sustainable farming practices, the food insecure would be getting less output from their

land. Thinking long-term however, the land itself would last longer and keep its agricultural

integrity for future use. By incentivizing sustainable farming, the Ethiopian government would
be moving to a more long-term approach that would make a sizable impact in solving food

insecurity. The logistics of this policy would be a simple redirection of existing programs and

non-government organizations’ donations.

As of 2017, the US Aid governmental website states that “8 million chronically food-

insecure people receive food or cash assistance through the Government of Ethiopia-led

Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP)” (U.S. Agency for International Development). Other

response organization like Food for Peace (FFP) and World Food Program (WFP) contribute a

portion of their funds to PSNP in order to target areas of food insecurity (U.S. Agency for

International Development, 2017). PSNP receives approximately $110 million each year from

these organizations and is able to give food aid to food insecure Ethiopian citizens (U.S. Agency

for International Development, 2017). WFP and PSNP currently require assisted households to

participate in “productive activities” such as improving infrastructure (U.S. Agency for

International Development, 2017). This structure resembles India’s food-for-work program with

similar downfalls.

Some scholars are concluding that this approach has a disincentive effect on agricultural

production, as aid is given all year, during good harvests, and in non-emergency regions

(Devereux, 2000). This means that food aid is actually contributing more to food insecurity by

making individuals reliant on the aid given because they no longer feel the need to farm. By

focusing the already existing food aid efforts to incentivizing sustainable agricultural instead of

infrastructure, Ethiopians would continue their agrarian society, not be completely dependent on

the aid given, and would be working towards lessening food insecurity.

To make this plan more successful, the “food for sustainable farming techniques”

initiative would combine payment methods from both PSNP and WFP. Within PSNP, the
program takes into account communities in which inflation is leading to greater food insecurity.

In communities where food is available but just not affordable, PSNP gives food insecure

individuals cash or vouchers to buy food (U.S. Agency for International Development, 2017).

PSNP explains that the use of cash-based transfers leads to less financial exploitation, more

choices, and support for the local economy (U.S. Agency for International Development, 2017).

Learning from the PSNP’s work, the “food for sustainable farming techniques” initiative would

evaluate the communities’ economy to decide if food or cash transfer would be the best course of

action. In the WFP, they approach the issue through the Purchase for Progress program. Through

this program the WFP buys food from local farmers to aid the food insecure. The initiative is

able to boost the local economy, cut costs, and strengthen smallholder farmers (World Food

Programme, 2017). Learning from the WFP, the “food for sustainable farming techniques”

initiative will source food aid from local farmer while also working to encourage sustainable

farming practices. By combining the chosen aspect, the proposed initiative will be more versatile

to different communities in Ethiopia and more supportive of local economies. Overall, creating a

well-tailored policy that can incentivize sustainable farming.

The proposed initiative is not anything radical. It is, after all, a simple redirection of

existing funds and efforts. But in doing so, a food aid policy would be working towards treating

the causes of food insecurity as well as symptoms: a very radical idea. Food insecurity is an issue

with multiple contributors. No single policy is able to fully encompass the magnitude of the

issue. Sustainable farming techniques is a step in the right direction for developing countries. A

step that they desperately need if agrarian societies wish to have useable land in the future. It is a

small change of focus, but it can lead to a sizable impact on alleviating food insecurity in

developing countries.
 Bibliography

Asefa, S. (2003). Rural Poverty, Food Insecurity and Environmental Degradation in Ethiopia: A

Case Study from South Central Ethiopia. International Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 1(1), 59-89.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27828820

Barnaby, F. (1987). Our Common Future: The "Brundtland Commission" Report. Ambio, 16(4),

217-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4313360

Barrett, C., & Clay, D. (2003). How Accurate is Food-for-Work Self-Targeting in the Presence of

Imperfect Factor Markets? Evidence from Ethiopia. The Journal of Development Studies, 39(5),

152–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380412331333189

Brown, M., & Funk, C. (2008). Food Security under Climate Change. Science, 319(5863), 580-

581.Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20053246

Desertification, Drought Affect One Third of Planet, World’s Poorest People, Second Committee

Told as It Continues Debate on Sustainable Development | Meetings Coverage and Press

Releases. (2012, November). Retrieved December 11, 2017, from

https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/gaef3352.doc.htm

Department of Rural Development. (2004). National Food for Work Programme. Government of

India Ministry of Rural Development.

Devereux, S. (2000, October). FOOD INSECURITY IN ETHIOPIA A discussion paper for DFID.

IDS Sussex.

Thrupp, L. A. (2000). Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and Food Security: the Valuable Role of

Agrobiodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture. International Affairs, 76(2), 283–297.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00133
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2017, September). Food Assistance Fact Sheet -

Ethiopia. Retrieved December 11, 2017, from https://www.usaid.gov/ethiopia/food-assistance

World Food Programme. (2017). Ethiopia | World Food Programme. Retrieved December 12, 2017,

from http://www1.wfp.org/countries/ethiopia