Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)

This presentation summarizes the biotic (insects, viruses, fungi, bacteria, weeds, and post-harvest pests) and abiotic (drought and soil nutrients) stresses that may be addressed or countered in order to improve crop yield in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Data is sourced from FAOSTAT, GAEZ, a series of academic papers by Waddington & Dixon, and IMPACT model estimates. Slides compare area harvested, yield, and yield gap percentage with total calories per year, the 2005 value of production, and projected growth between 2005-2030. 

This report combines analyses from four previous EPAR briefs on the effects of climate change on maize, rice, wheat, sorghum, and millet production in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In addition, this brief presents new analysis of the projected impact of climate changes in SSA. We include comparisons of the importance of each crop, of their vulnerability to climate change, and of the research and policy resources dedicated to each. Especially with respect to climatic susceptibility, these rankings provide a comparative summary based upon the analysis conducted in the four previous EPAR briefs, statistical analyses of historical yield and climate data, and future climate model predictions. According to the indicators analyzed, our research suggests that maize leads the cereal crops in terms of importance within SSA and in terms of research and policy attention. Our analysis of climate conditions and the crop’s physical requirements suggests that many maize-growing areas are likely to move outside the range of ideal temperature and precipitation conditions for maize production. Rice is the third most important crop in terms of consumption dependency, fourth in terms of production, but second only to maize in terms of research funding and FTEs. Sorghum and millet rank second and third in production importance and second and fifth in consumption importance, but rank below maize and rice in terms of FTE researchers. Their role is complicated by the fact that they are often considered inferior goods; SSA consumers often substitute away from sorghum and millet consumption if they are able to do so. Wheat is the least-produced crop of the five, and the second to last in terms of consumption importance. However, it still ranks above millet in terms of FTE researchers.

Ecological farming and conventional farming are two approaches to producing food. The term “ecological farming” describes a range of agricultural systems that seek to provide food and environmental and social benefits by using natural processes and local resources rather than off-farm, purchased inputs (commonly referred to as “external inputs”). Recent debate about the merits of ecological farming over conventional methods has centered on each system’s ability to increase production in the context of numerous and varied biophysical and social constraints. A review of the literature suggests that ecological farming can offer some benefits to smallholder farmers, but that specific approaches must be tailored to local climate and soil conditions and availability of labor, training, and organic inputs.

Smallholder farmers in Africa are largely located in poor rural areas, are often geographically dispersed, and have limited access to road and communication infrastructure, thus raising the cost of market participation. This is especially true for farmers growing relatively low value staple crops. This literature review summarizes research on the challenges and innovations in linking smallholder producers of staple grains to markets in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a focus on post-harvest issues including storage, aggregation, and transportation. For each post-harvest stage, we describe challenges faced by farmers and current efforts to address these challenges. In our review, we find a large amount of literature on the constraints to smallholder production and marketing but relatively few examples of innovative or novel technologies designed to improve storage and transportation for rural smallholder producers in Africa. Existing technologies have often been available for some time but have not seen widespread adoption, apparently due to high costs or inadequate funding for on-farm testing and extension. We conclude that the literature is somewhat divided as to whether interventions linking smallholder farmers to markets should be entirely market-driven and focus on linkages that can be profitable without subsidization, or whether NGO- and donor-driven interventions should play a role.