Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?

CONTEXT: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the climatic and biophysical potential to grow the crops it needs to meet rapidly growing food demand; however, agricultural productivity remains low. While potential maize yields in Zambia are 9 t per hectare (t/ha), the average farmer produces only 1–2. OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the contribution of responses to weather risk to that gap by decomposing the yield gap in maize in Zambia. While we know that improved seed and fertilizer can expand yield and profit, they may also increase the variance of yield under different weather outcomes, reducing their adoption. METHODS: We use a novel approach combining crop modeling and statistical analysis of survey data to obtain the yield gap components in Zambia driven by input cost and input risk. We use a crop model to simulate district-level marginal effects of fertilizer and seed maturity choice on the mean and variance of expected yield and profit under all-weather outcomes for each district for the past 30 years. We compare input levels that maximize expected yield to those that maximize expected profit and maximize the expected mean-variance trade-off assuming risk-aversion. To determine how much farmers' input choices are made to reduce risk, we then quantify differences in the expected riskiness of inputs by district. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We find approximately one-quarter of the yield gap can be explained by risk-reducing behavior, albeit with a substantial geographic variation. Given this finding, under present conditions, we expect that the average maximum yield that farmers can obtain without increasing risk is 6.75 t/ha compared to a potential profit-maximizing level of 8.84 t/ha. SIGNIFICANCE: The risk-related yield gap is only expected to increase with weather extremes driven by climate change. Promoting “one-size-fits all” solutions to closing the yield gap could underestimate the effect of risk mitigation on agricultural production while increasing farmers.CONTEXTO: El África subsahariana (ASS) tiene el potencial climático y biofísico para aumentar los cultivos que necesita para satisfacer la creciente demanda de alimentos; sin embargo, la productividad agrícola sigue siendo baja. Si bien los rendimientos potenciales del maíz en Zambia son de 9 t por hectárea (t/ha), el agricultor promedio produce sólo 1-2. OBJETIVO: Evaluamos la contribución de las respuestas al riesgo climático a esa brecha descomponiendo la brecha de rendimiento del maíz en Zambia. Si bien sabemos que las semillas y los fertilizantes mejorados pueden aumentar el rendimiento y las ganancias, también pueden aumentar la variación del rendimiento en diferentes condiciones climáticas, lo que reduce su adopción. MÉTODO: Utilizamos un enfoque novedoso que combina modelos de cultivos y análisis estadístico de datos de encuestas para obtener los componentes de la brecha de rendimiento en Zambia impulsados por el costo y el riesgo de los insumos. Utilizamos un modelo de cultivo para simular los efectos marginales a nivel de distrito de la elección de la madurez de las semillas y los fertilizantes sobre la media y la varianza del rendimiento y la ganancia esperados bajo resultados en cualquier condición climática para cada distrito durante los últimos 30 años. Comparamos los niveles de insumos que maximizan el rendimiento esperado con aquellos que maximizan el beneficio esperado y maximizan la compensación esperada entre media y varianza suponiendo aversión al riesgo. Para determinar en qué medida los agricultores eligen insumos para reducir el riesgo, luego cuantificamos las diferencias en el riesgo esperado de los insumos por distrito. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Encontramos que aproximadamente una cuarta parte de la brecha de rendimiento puede explicarse por un comportamiento de reducción de riesgos, aunque con una variación geográfica sustancial. Dado este hallazgo, en las condiciones actuales, esperamos que el rendimiento máximo promedio que los agricultores pueden obtener sin aumentar el riesgo sea de 6,75 t/ha en comparación con un nivel potencial de maximización de ganancias de 8,84 t/ha. SIGNIFICADO: Sólo se espera que la brecha de rendimiento relacionada con el riesgo aumente con los extremos climáticos impulsados por el cambio climático. Promover soluciones únicas para cerrar la brecha de rendimiento podría subestimar el efecto de la mitigación de riesgos en la producción agrícola y al mismo tiempo aumentar los agricultores.Centro de Investigación en Economía y ProspectivaFil: Gatti, Nicolás. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Centro de Investigación en Economía y Prospectiva (CIEP); ArgentinaFil: Gatti, Nicolás. Universidad del Centro de Estudios Macroeconómicos de Argentina (UCEMA); ArgentinaFil: Cecil, Michael. Clark University. Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Baylis, Kathy. University of California Santa Barbara. Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Estes, Lyndon. Clark University. Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Blekking, Jordan. Indiana University. Bloomington Department of Geography; Estados UnidosFil: Heckelei, Thomas. Universitaet Bonn. Institute for Food and Resource Economics; AlemaniaFil: Vergopolan, Noemi. Princeton University. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program; Estados UnidosFi: Evans, Tom. University of Arizona. School of Geography, Development & Environment; Estados Unido

Is closing the agricultural yield gap a risky endeavor?

CONTEXT: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the climatic and biophysical potential to grow the crops it needs to meet rapidly growing food demand; however, agricultural productivity remains low. While potential maize yields in Zambia are 9 t per hectare (t/ha), the average farmer produces only 1–2. OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the contribution of responses to weather risk to that gap by decomposing the yield gap in maize in Zambia. While we know that improved seed and fertilizer can expand yield and profit, they may also increase the variance of yield under different weather outcomes, reducing their adoption. METHODS: We use a novel approach combining crop modeling and statistical analysis of survey data to obtain the yield gap components in Zambia driven by input cost and input risk. We use a crop model to simulate district-level marginal effects of fertilizer and seed maturity choice on the mean and variance of expected yield and profit under all-weather outcomes for each district for the past 30 years. We compare input levels that maximize expected yield to those that maximize expected profit and maximize the expected mean-variance trade-off assuming risk-aversion. To determine how much farmers\u27 input choices are made to reduce risk, we then quantify differences in the expected riskiness of inputs by district. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We find approximately one-quarter of the yield gap can be explained by risk-reducing behavior, albeit with a substantial geographic variation. Given this finding, under present conditions, we expect that the average maximum yield that farmers can obtain without increasing risk is 6.75 t/ha compared to a potential profit-maximizing level of 8.84 t/ha. SIGNIFICANCE: The risk-related yield gap is only expected to increase with weather extremes driven by climate change. Promoting “one-size-fits all” solutions to closing the yield gap could underestimate the effect of risk mitigation on agricultural production while increasing farmers\u27 risk exposure. © 2023 The Author

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base : Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis

Strengthening the food systems governance evidence base: Supporting commensurability of research through a systematic review of methods

Governance of food systems is a poorly understood determinant of food security. Much scholarship on food systems governance is non-empirical, while existing research is often case study-based and theoretically and methodologically incommensurable. This frustrates aggregation of evidence and generalisation. We undertook a systematic review of methods used in food systems governance research with a view to identifying a core set of indicators for future research. We gathered literature through a structured consultation and sampling from recent reviews. Indicators were identified and classified according to the levels and sectors they investigate. We found a concentration of indicators in food production at local to national levels and a sparseness in distribution and consumption. Unsurprisingly, many indicators of institutional structure were found, while agency-related indicators are moderately represented. We call for piloting and validation of these indicators and for methodological development to fill gaps identified. These efforts are expected to support a more consolidated future evidence base and eventual meta-analysis

Advancing the research agenda on food systems governance and transformation

The food systems upon which humanity depends face multiple interdependent environmental, social and economic threats in the 21st Century. Yet, the governance of these systems, which determines to a large extent the ability to adapt and transform in response to these challenges, is underresearched. This perspective piece synthesises the findings of two recent reviews of food systems governance and transformations and proposes a comprehensive research agenda for the coming years. These reviews highlight the influence of governance on food systems, methodological obstacles to explaining the effectiveness of governance in realising food sustainability, and conditions that have historically supported food system transformations. We argue that the following steps are key to improving our knowledge of the role of governance in food systems: (1) developing more comparable research designs for building generalisable explanations of the governance elements that are most effective in realising food systems goals; (2) using the lens of polycentricity to help disentangle complex governance networks; (3) giving greater attention to the conditions and pre-conditions associated with historical food system transformations; (4) identifying adaptations that strengthen or weaken path dependency; and, (5) focusing research on how transformations can be supported by institutions that facilitate collective action and stakeholder agency

Adaptive Governance and Market Heterogeneity: An Institutional Analysis of an Urban Food System in Sub-Saharan Africa

African cities face immense challenges over the coming decades. As countries urbanize, African cities must maintain service provision for rapidly increasing populations, yet with limited resources. In particular, urban food systems must be able to cope with regional food shortages and catalyze (or at least enable) the distribution of food from diverse sources in order to ensure that the cost of food remains affordable for all of the segments of a city’s population. Food systems in most African cities are composed of wholesale sellers, formal markets, street vendors, shops, and increasingly large-scale international stores, creating an evolving landscape of food sources. At the same time, urban population growth can result in rapid changes in urban structure with new peri-urban development and transitions in socioeconomic status within existing areas. Governance plays an important role in the creation and coordination of formal and informal actors across different types of food providers. At the municipal level, new markets must be approved to keep pace with urban expansion. Within residential areas, market management committees must work to maintain traditional markets in the context of increasing competition from large-scale grocers and small-scale street vendors. We use household and market-level data that was collected in Lusaka, Zambia, to conduct an institutional analysis of residential areas to examine the interplay between households, public markets, and street vendors. Analysis of the city’s food system identifies a complex network of relationships featuring formal and informal governance arrangements, which may affect food system functionality