Multiple pathways towards achieving a living income for different types of smallholder tree-crop commodity farmers

Abstract

Many sources indicate that smallholder tree-crop commodity farmers are poor, but there is a paucity of data on how many of them are poor and the depth of poverty. The living income concept establishes the net annual income required for a household in a place to afford a decent standard of living. Based on datasets on smallholder cocoa and tea farmers in Ghana, Ivory Coast and Kenya and literature, we conclude that a large proportion of such farmers do not have the potential to earn a living income based on their current situation. Because these farmers typically cultivate small farm sizes and have low capacity to invest and to diversify, there are no silver bullets to move them out of poverty. We present an assessment approach that results in insights into which interventions can be effective in improving the livelihoods of different types of farmers. While it is morally imperative that all households living in poverty are supported to earn a living income, the assessment approach and literature indicate that focussing on short- to medium-term interventions for households with a low likelihood of generating a living income could be: improving food security and health, finding off-farm and alternative employment, and social assistance programmes. In the long term, land governance policies could address land fragmentation and secure rights. Achieving living incomes based on smallholder commodity production requires more discussion and engagement with farmers and their household members and within their communities, coordination between all involved stakeholders, sharing lessons learnt and data.

Keywords: Behavioural change; Land governance; Living income; Poverty benchmarks; Smallholder commodity farmers; Social assistance programme.

Fig. 1

The living income concept. Source: Living Income Community of Practice: www.living-income.com

Fig. 2

The food system, its drivers and outcomes. Source: (van Berkum et al., 2018)

Fig. 3

Key contextual factors in the design of living income interventions. Source: (Waarts et al., 2019)

Fig. 4

Percentage of smallholder cocoa and tea farmers above and below the USD 1.90 World Bank poverty line and living income benchmarks. Sources: Ghana: (Waarts et al., 2015) (N = 311), Côte d’Ivoire: (Ingram et al., 2018) (N = 362), Kenya: (Waarts et al., 2016) (N = 439)

Fig. 5

Average percentage increase in crop and/or household income of target group compared to comparison group for different types of interventions (in the information on certification, changes in household income were found to be 13% but were not significant, which is why we did not present this change in the figure). Sources: (Dalberg & Wageningen University, ; Hemming et al., ; Oya et al., ; Ton et al., ; Waddington et al., 2014)

Fig. 6

Mean farm sizes in hectare for different groups of cocoa farmers in Ghana and Ivory Coast and tea farmers in Kenya. Sources: Ghana: (Waarts et al., 2015) (N = 311), Côte d’Ivoire: (Ingram et al., 2018) (N = 362), Kenya: (Waarts et al., 2016) (N = 439)

Fig. 7

Increase in current farm sizes needed to close the living income gap for farmers who currently earn less than the living income benchmark. Sources: Ghana: (Waarts et al., 2015) (N = 311), Côte d’Ivoire: (Ingram et al., 2018) (N = 362), Kenya: (Waarts et al., 2016) (N = 439)

Fig. 8

Income earned per household member per year (USD Purchasing Power Parity) (For comparison, the monthly living income line per family was converted to a daily living income per household member). Sources: Ghana: (Waarts et al., 2015) (N = 311), Côte d’Ivoire: (Ingram et al., 2018) (N = 362), Kenya: (Waarts et al., 2016) (N = 439)

Fig. 9

Scenarios for the impact of price increases on percentage of smallholder cocoa and tea farmers above and below the USD 1.90 World Bank poverty line and living income benchmarks (a 50% price increase is assumed to lead to 50% income increase). Sources: Ghana: (Waarts et al., 2015) (N = 311), Côte d’Ivoire: (Ingram et al., 2018) (N = 362), Kenya: (Waarts et al., 2016) (N = 439)

Fig. 10

Productivity per hectare per farmer group and the maximum yield level in the research area confirmed by experts. Sources: Ghana: (Waarts et al., 2015) (N = 311), Côte d’Ivoire: (Ingram et al., 2018) (N = 362), Kenya: (Waarts et al., 2016) (N = 439)

Fig. 11

a Assessment approach for deciding on the focus of interventions (type of food system interventions, and objectives) for different groups of commodity farmers and their households. This assessment approach includes an example of households with the potential for earning a living income, based on their current situation. b Assessment approach for deciding on the focus of interventions (type of food system interventions, and objectives) for different groups of commodity farmers and their households. This assessment approach includes an example of households without the potential for earning a living income, based on their current situation