Types of Research
- (-) Remove Research Brief filter Research Brief
- (-) Remove Aid & Other Development Finance filter Aid & Other Development Finance
- (-) Remove Technology Adoption filter Technology Adoption
- (-) Remove Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making filter Risk, Preferences, & Decision-Making
- (-) Remove Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management filter Agricultural Inputs & Farm Management
Climate change is predicted to have increasingly dire effects on the largely rainfed agriculture of sub-Saharan agriculture, a livelihood that also contributes to climate change. Within this context, multilateral funding institutions are increasingly funding projects devoted to the adaptation to or mitigation of climate change. Data from the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) provide an overview of climate-related project data, but the intersection of climate-related projects and projects intended to develop rural and agricultural economies is less explored. This paper focuses on climate-related projects in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of rural and agricultural project funding. We use a custom dataset from three separate multilaterals (the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Fund for Agricultural Development) to answer the following research questions:
- What proportion of agriculture-related lending across the three multilaterals of interest has a climate component?
- Which countries are borrowing most for climate-related agricultural projects? Is the amount of borrowing correlated with a country’s climate risk?
Of all financing projects in our dataset (N = 1,846), we identified 203 as being climate-related (11%) and 505 as being related to rural agricultural economies (27%). Of the $26.5 billion annualized project funding, rural and agricultural financing accounts for $6.5 billion (24.6%) while climate projects receive $1.97 billion (7.4%). The World Bank funds approximately half of all agriculture projects in the dataset, with the AfDB funding just under 30% and IFAD just over 20%.
Annual average borrowing amounts from multilaterals for climate-related rural/agricultural economies projects varies widely across sub-Saharan Africa. The major borrowers include Ethiopia ($150 million), Nigeria ($105 million), and Kenya ($102 million). The proportion of multilateral borrowing for climate-related projects among all rural agricultural borrowing also varies substantially across sub-Saharan Africa; the Seychelles and Eswatini devote the largest proportions of rural agricultural borrowing toward climate work (100% and 69.8%, respectively). Fourteen SSA countries devote between 15% and 30% of rural agricultural borrowing to climate-related projects and fifteen have not received any multilateral financing for climate-related rural/agricultural economies projects.
We do not find a statistically significant relationship between a country’s Climate Risk Index and the proportion of annual rural/agricultural economies borrowing focused on climate.
Financing for Climate Change in Africa: A View of Sovereign Borrowing in Agriculture from Multilateral Funding Institutions . EPAR Technical Report #411 (2022). Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington. Retrieved <Day Month Year> from https://epar.evans.uw.edu/research
This brief presents an overview of EPAR’s previous research related to gender. We first present our key takeaways related to labor and time use, technology adoption, agricultural production, control over income and assets, health and nutrition, and data collection. We then provide a brief overview of each previous research project related to gender along with gender-related findings, starting with the most recent project. Many of the gender-related findings draw from other sources; please see the full documents for references. Reports available on EPAR’s website are hyperlinked in the full brief.
Consumer attitudes are a key component in private sector market segmentation. Knowledge about consumers’ tastes can lead to better product design and more effective communication with target markets. Similarly, evidence suggests that farmers’ attitudes influence whether they adopt productivity-increasing technologies. Using consumer insights from the private sector, agricultural intervention programs can use market research, product development, and communication strategies to better understand farmers as consumers and best target interventions. This brief provides an overview of how farmers' attitudes affect their willingness to adopt new technology, and how knowledge of farmer attitudes can improve program design and implementation.
This brief presents selected material from the Fourth African Agricultural Markets Program (AAMP) policy symposium, Agricultural Risks Management in Africa: Taking Stock of What Has and Hasn’t Worked, organized by the Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa that took place in Lilongwe, Malawi, September 6-10, 2010. We draw almost exclusively from Rashid and Jayne’s summary, “Risk Management in African Agriculture: A review of experiences.” This article summarizes across the background papers, with major findings grouped into three broad categories: cross cutting, government-led policies, and modern instruments.
Introducing technology that is designed to be physically appropriate and valuable to women farmers can increase yields and raise income. But gender issues for agricultural technology projects in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are extremely complex. The EPAR series on Gender and Cropping in SSA offers examples of how these issues can affect crop production and adoption of agricultural technologies at each point in the crop cycle for eight crops (cassava, cotton, maize, millet, rice, sorghum, wheat, and yam). This executive summary highlights innovative opportunities for interventions that consider these dimensions of gender. We encourage readers to consult the crop specific briefs for more details. We find that involving both men and women in the development, testing, and dissemination of agricultural technology has been shown to be successful in helping both benefit. Nevertheless, a consistent finding throughout the Gender and Cropping in SSA series is that maximum benefits from technological innovations cannot be realized when upstream factors like education, power, and land tenure heavily influence outcomes. Addressing these more basic upstream causes of gender inequality may be even more important in helping households increase productivity and maximize the benefits of technological interventions.
A widely quoted estimate is that women produce 70 to 80 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) food. Increasing farmer productivity in SSA therefore requires understanding how these women make planting, harvesting, and other decisions that affect the production, consumption, and marketing of their crops. This brief provides an overview of the gender cropping series highlighting similar themes from the various crops studied, presenting an overarching summary of the findings and conclusion of the individual literature reviews. The studies reviewed suggest that differential preferences and access to assets by men and women can affect adoption levels and the benefits that accrue to men and women. Findings show that women have less secure access to credit, land, inputs, extension, and markets. Similarly, women’s multi-faceted role in household management gives rise to preferences that may very well be different from those of men. Participatory Breeding and Participatory Varietal Selection are two methods shown to be successful in developing technology that is more appropriate and more likely to avoid unintended consequences. Regularly collecting gender-disaggregated statistics can also result in a greater understanding of how technology has affected both men and women. Agricultural technology has the potential to enhance both men’s and women’s welfare and productivity, but unless gender is sufficiently integrated into every step of the development and dissemination process, efforts will only achieve a fraction of their total possible benefit.
Estimates suggest that women grow 70-80 percent of Africa’s food crops, which may constrain their involvement in cash crop production, if food crop production places additional demands their time, resources and labor. There is little evidence regarding women’s motivations or decisions to grow cash versus food crops. Similarly, the policy literature on cotton production and markets in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) does not explicitly address the issue of gender, further limiting the information available on the impact of cotton production on women. This brief provides an overview of the role of women in cotton production, and provides a framework for analyzing barriers to women and technology’s impact on women throughout the cropping cycle. We find that women are typically not the primary cultivators of cotton, and that cotton production is a household cultivation strategy, especially in West and Central Africa. Cotton cultivation often provides access to fertilizers, pesticides and extension services that are otherwise unavailable to households. Women have benefitted from household cotton income when they have input in intra-household resource allocation decisions or when they are able to grow cotton on personal plots and have control over the income it generates. Women also benefit from cotton when it offers them the opportunity to engage in paid labor. The data suggests, however, that cotton cultivation can negatively impact women when it increases their unpaid agricultural labor burden or exposes them to harmful chemicals.
EPAR’s Political Economy of Fertilizer Policy series provides a history of government intervention in the fertilizer markets of eight Sub-Saharan African countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania. The briefs focus on details of present and past voucher programs, input subsidies, tariffs in the fertilizer sector, and the political context of these policies. The briefs illustrate these policies’ effect on key domestic crops and focus on the strengths and weaknesses of current market structure. Fertilizer policy in SSA has been extremely dynamic over the last fifty years, swinging from enormous levels of intervention in the 1960s and 70s to liberalization of markets of the 1980s and 1990s. More recently, intervention has become more moderate, focusing on “market smart” subsidies and support. This executive summary highlights key findings and common themes from the series.
On July 10, 2009 at the Italy G8 summit, attendees issued a joint statement pledging to contribute $20 billion towards agricultural development and food security in the developing world over the next three years. This research brief notes the status of the contributions made to the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and whether any of the $20 billion will be allocated to agricultural research. We conclude that no declarations have been made as of September 2009 on how much of the $20 billion will be allocated to agricultural research, and which types of research will be funded by the initiative.
Nigeria’s experience with fertilizer subsidy programs has been different than that of other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria is one of the only African countries capable of producing fertilizer domestically. But Nigeria is also large and densely populated. This makes national agricultural policy difficult due to logistical problems with implementation and the unique fertilizer needs of the various agro-ecological zones. This research brief discusses the effects of Nigeria’s input subsidy programs on maize production and fertilizer consumption. It focuses on the years 2000 to 2007, but also includes a discussion of Nigeria’s subsidy history from the early 1970s to 2009. Researchers have had difficulty studying Nigeria’s subsidy schemes due to a lack of data. In spite of decades of authoritarian, centralized leadership, Nigeria’s states have significant power to implement their own subsidies. This complicates any evaluation of a program’s effectiveness, in part due to the variety of subsidies at any given time, as well as inconsistent accounting practices.