5 TLEd205 Chapter3

TLEd 205 - Agri-Fishery Arts Part I- Introduction to Agriculture and Fishery Arts
Course Outcome 1:
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of agriculture
and fisheries concepts, situation, problems and prospects, statutes,
and its role in development
CHAPTER III
THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERY IN SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT
Duration: 7.5 hrs
Introduction
The Philippines is integrally an agricultural country. It is even said that “agriculture is the backbone of
our country”. Historically, raising crops and livestock has been the economic activity of most people. The
Philippine culture and society is shaped around agricultural practices, beliefs, celebrations/festivities, and
everything that has something to do with mountains, fields, seas, cultivating plants, raising animals, fishing, and
related activities, hence, agriculture plays a very significant role in the development of the country until today.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the module, students must have:
1. Identified and explained the critical and significant role of agriculture and fishery in societal and
economic development;
2. Enumerated and elaborated on how can agriculture and fishery efforts be attuned to sustainable
development;
3. Conceptualized possible sustainable/green agri-fishery project/activity applicable in the school setting
that shall uphold economic and societal development.
References
The Role of Agriculture in the Development of Least-Developed Countries and their Integration into the World
Economy. Commodities and Trade Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, 2002
The Importance of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Development in “Fisheries, Sustainability and Development”.
Cambria Finegold. Fisheries, Aquaculture and Development
Robert Arthur (MRAG), Chris Béné (IDS), William Leschen and David Little. 2013. Recent Trends in Aquaculture
and Fisheries in “Fisheries and aquaculture and their potential roles in development: an assessment of
the current evidence”.
Gil, Nelfa C., Gil, Allen Glen C., Paloma, Lorelie J. & Hufalar, Annabelle M. 2019. Socio-Economic Predictive
Model of Agricultural Production; Southern Leyte State University, Sogod, Southern Leyte; paper
presented during the National Conference on Poverty Alleviation & Sustainable Development
(iPovCon2019) Sept. 25-27, 2019
Lesson 1. THE AGRICULTURE AND FISHERY SECTORS SITUATIONER
Lesson Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
1. Enumerated the roles of agriculture in the economy;

2. Discussed the challenges of globalization and trade liberalization to agriculture and fishery;
3. Pointed out and elaborated on supply and demand issues in agriculture; and
4. Identified some significant predicters of agricultural production.
Lesson Content
THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

AND THEIR INTEGRATION INTO THE WORLD ECONOMY
Adaptation from: Commodities and Trade Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2002
Role of Agriculture in the Economy
The agricultural sector is at the heart of the economies of the least-developed countries (LDCs). It accounts for
a large share of gross domestic product (GDP) (ranging from 30 to 60 percent in about two thirds of them),
employs a large proportion of the labour force (from 40 percent to as much as 90 percent in most cases),
represents a major source of foreign exchange (from 25 percent to as much as 95 percent in three quarters of
the countries), supplies the bulk of basic food and provides subsistence and other income to more than half of
the LDCs' population. The strong forward and backward linkages within the rural sector and with other sectors
of the economy provide added stimulus for growth and income generation. Thus, significant progress in
promoting economic growth, reducing poverty and enhancing food security cannot be achieved in most of
these countries without developing more fully the potential human and productive capacity of the agricultural
sector and enhancing its contribution to overall economic and social development. A strong and vibrant food
and agricultural system thus forms a primary pillar in the strategy of overall economic growth and
development. Agriculture in LDCs cannot continue to be treated as a residual sector for policy attention and
investments.
The Challenges of Globalization and Trade Liberalization
Although globalization offers opportunities for growth and development in all parts of the world, the hopes and
promises attached to rapid liberalization of trade and finance have not so far been fulfilled in many developing
countries, and particularly so in LDCs. In fact, the latter are increasingly becoming marginalized, especially in
agriculture. The combined share of their agricultural exports declined from about 5 percent of world
agricultural exports in the early 1970s to just around 1 percent in 1996-98. LDCs face many difficulties, both
internal and external, in their efforts to develop their agriculture and to achieve their objectives of improving
food security and increasing export earnings. Internal difficulties include low productivity, inflexible
production and trade structures, low skill capacity, low life expectancy and educational attainments, poor
infrastructure, and deficient institutional and policy frameworks. At the same time, with the growing
integration of markets due to globalization and liberalization, their economies face a more fiercely competitive
external trading environment. They continue to export a limited range of primary commodities that are highly
vulnerable to instability in demand and a decline in terms of trade. In addition, their external debt remains
large. Their inability to compete on world markets, as well as in their home markets, is also reflected in their
rising food import bills. Effective ways need to be found to support LDCs with a view to improving their
economic and social conditions, achieving structural transformation, diversification and international
competitiveness, overcoming their supply-side constraints and, ultimately, accelerating sustainable growth.
THE PRESENT SITUATION OF AGRICULTURE
Despite its importance to the economy, agriculture in LDCs has remained largely underdeveloped in production
both for the domestic market and for export. Although there was a modest growth of output during 1995-98, it
barely exceeded population growth, and for the 1990s as a whole in per caput terms it actually declined. In
addition, slow food production growth and sharp annual fluctuations in output remain major and chronic
problems for the LDCs, constituting the major causes of their rising poverty and food insecurity. Between 1969-
71 and 1996-98, the proportion of undernourished in total population in LDCs increased from 38 percent to 40
per cent, while the absolute number of undernourished increased from 116 million to 235 million. For the rest
of the developing countries, by contrast, the proportion of undernourished in total population in 1996-98
was18 percent. In addition, indicators of poverty show that the proportion of people living below the poverty
line (defined as $1 per day) has risen in many LDCs.1 What follows is a brief analysis of the major internal
factors underlying the present agricultural situation in LDCs. Areas are highlighted where improvements in
policies, institutions and investment could accelerate agricultural growth to levels that would help to reduce
rural poverty and enhance food security.
Supply Issues
Trends in production
Over the past decade, agricultural production, including food production, has not kept pace with population
growth in LDCs as a whole. Although agricultural output in 1990-99 rose at an annual average rate of 2.5
percent, exceeding the rate of 1.6 percent in the previous decade, in per caput terms there was virtually no
increase in output, or even a slight decline. The situation was the same for per caput staple food production
(Table 1).
1. However, these aggregate figures conceal a wide diversity of performance among countries. While more
than 25 countries experienced negative per caput growth rates during 1990-99, 5 had positive growth as
high as 2-5 percent. In only about 15 LDCs was per caput agricultural production in 1990-99 higher than in
1980-90. Elsewhere, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), there was a decline.
2. Many LDCs changed from being net food exporters during the 1960s to net food importers during the 1980s
and 1990s.Current projections are for their dependence on imports to increase at least up to 2015.2
3. Although there have been sharp annual fluctuations over the past 30 years, the value of production of nearly
all agricultural commodities rose during 1990-97, the only exceptions being cassava, cocoa and sisal (Annex
Table 1).
Determining factors and constraints
Physical aspects
Most LDCs have considerable unexploited potential in agriculture, thanks to their factor endowment in land,
water, climate, the scope for utilizing their human resources and improving on their so far limited use of
modern farming methods. There is thus great scope for more effective use of their agricultural resources and
for increasing their agricultural productivity.
Land and water resource potential and constraints

The most fundamental factor influencing the agricultural production potential of a country is the availability of
arable land. Land is the essential prior resource needed for crop, animal and forestry production. Thus, the
existence of a potential for expanding the cultivated area is basic to national agricultural planning. Comparing
the potentially cultivable area with current use of land and forecasts of future population growth will indicate
whether countries have the physical capacity for expanding agricultural production, whether for domestic use
or for export.
Least-developed countries have widely diverse agro-ecological situations, with varying availability and quality
of arable land and varying climatic conditions. Some countries have large areas of arable land and considerable
water resources while others have more limited availabilities or are almost devoid of these resources.
Prospects for agricultural development necessarily hinge on these considerations.
With the objective of classifying countries in terms of potential for agricultural production, a ranking on the
basis of the land resource availability and constraints was undertaken, taking into account not only land and
water constraints but also climatic constraints and population growth.3 Annex Table 2 ranks 35 of the LDCs for
which comprehensive data were available in terms of per caput potential arable land as well as per caput
cultivable land in actual use. Potential arable land refers to areas that could be brought under cultivation
because of soil suitability and availability of water (rainfall or irrigation).4 It is important to note that in most
cases potential arable land is rainfed and suffers from constraints such as ecological fragility, low fertility,
toxicity, and high incidence of disease. These reduce its productivity and require heavy inputs and management
skills to permit its sustainable use. Furthermore, especially considering the lack of financial resources in many
LDCs, prohibitively high investments may be required before the land is rendered accessible or disease-free.
FAO projections to 2015 indicate that the expansion of arable land as well as harvested land is expected to be
below the past rate of increase.
The overall rankings indicate countries with the most favourable conditions (low rank numbers) or the most
severe problems (high rank numbers) with respect to physical resource potential and constraints, now and in
the future. This ranking is broadly indicative of a country's relative land resource potential. Three types of
countries can be distinguished: i) those with a relatively large land balance, where extensive agricultural
expansion may still be possible (e.g. Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambique); ii) those which are
close to the limit of exploiting actual arable land (e.g. Bangladesh and Somalia); and iii) those which have
exploited almost all their arable land and can probably not expand much more (e.g. Afghanistan and Yemen).
Thus grouped, the countries can respectively be considered as having a high, medium and low agricultural
potential. Out of the 10 highest-ranked countries 8 fall in the humid zone of central Africa. In this group there
would appear to be a productive potential that is not yet exploited.
Among the lowest-ranked countries, there are two highly contrasted groups: i) two countries that have over 90
percent of their land as deserts and drylands; and ii) four relatively humid countries with problems of step
lands and land degradation.
Another feature of the lower-ranking countries that may be noted is that at least five of them have, in recent
years, experienced major civil conflicts, political instability, or war. The high rate of population growth in these
countries is likely to increase pressure on land resources, which can lead to the breakdown of traditional
property rights to land, and ultimately of law and order. Among the many consequences of such changes is
further degradation of land.
Potential for growth in agricultural productivity and its importance

In LDCs, the contribution of increases in productivity to agricultural growth has been limited or zero.
Horizontal expansion, i.e. bringing more land under cultivation, remains the dominant source of growth. Given
the increasing pressure on agricultural resources, however, faster agricultural growth, particularly in countries
with limited scope for land expansion, will require continuing increases in agricultural productivity from its
present relatively low level. Such increases are attainable if major constraints on enhancing productivity, such
as lack of favourable incentives, limited rural public investment and poor institutional support, are effectively
tackled.
Available evidence shows that the potential productivity gains are considerable. In terms of agricultural value
added per worker, productivity increased, though only slightly, in 21 out of the 31 LDCs for which data are
available between 1979-81 and 1995-97 (Annex Table 3). However, in comparison to other developing
countries the agricultural value added per worker in LDCs appears to be relatively low, suggesting that there is
much room for improvement.
The following is a broad assessment of productivity in each of the major agricultural sub-sectors.
(i) Crops
The most widely used indicator of crop productivity is production per unit of land (also referred to
as crop yield). In general, crop yields in LDCs are low relative to those in other developing countries
(Annex Table 4). Yields of the basic food commodities (cereals, roots and tubers and oil crops) are
less than half the average for developing countries, although there is much variation among
countries. There thus appears to be potential for substantial gains in productivity.5 Unlike most
other developing countries, growth in agriculture in LDCs owes a great deal to area expansion
rather than to advances in yields. For example, area expansion accounted for 77 percent of the
growth in cereal production in LDCs during 1981-89 and for 72 percent in 1990-99, and higher
yields for only 23 percent and 27 percent, respectively (Annex Table 5). For rice, maize and fibre
crops, however, a relatively high and increasing contribution was made by productivity
improvements (yields).
(ii) Livestock
Livestock is an important and growing sub-sector, providing a substantial source of income and
nutrition for the rural poor in most LDCs. It remains the principal form of non-human power
available to rural farmers, and is used by both men and women for various purposes, including
accumulation. LDCs have substantial hidden growth reserves in the livestock sector. A comparison
of LDCs’ share in world livestock numbers with their share in world output therefrom (Annex Table
6) provides an indication of the relative productivity levels of LDCs. Although 14 percent of the
world’s cattle and 18 percent of the world’s sheep and goats were in LDCs in 1997-99, those
countries produced only about 4 percent of the world’s beef and 11 percent of the world’s sheep
and goat meat. Livestock production in LDCs relies much more on traditional operations. It relies
largely on growth in the number of animals for increased production. There was virtually no
significant improvement in productivity per animal in most LDCs, where their average productivity
levels remain much below those of developing countries as a whole (Annex Table 6). The extreme
scarcity of capital, shortage of quality feed and widespread prevalence of disease have constrained
their livestock sector. To achieve greater improvements in productivity there is a need for: i)
continued investment in both research and the development of animal and feed grain production
and processing and ii) assistance to small, poor livestock producers, so that they can become better
integrated with commercial livestock marketing and processing.
(iii) Fisheries
Many LDCs have great potential in fisheries. Although this potential has not yet been fully exploited,
fisheries products are increasingly contributing to food consumption of the population and to
foreign exchange earnings. Catch potentials vary widely among countries. Those in north-west
Africa, south-west Africa, the south-west Indian Ocean (for tuna) and the Rift Valley lakes, for
example, have the greatest potential for production and exports. The countries bordering the
Atlantic Ocean benefit from particular oceanic conditions (i.e. upwelling systems) that greatly
contribute to the increase of marine water productivity, although these systems are subject to
marked fluctuations due to weather. High-price demersal species are considered to have
approached the limits of possible exploitation, but low-price pelagics are thought to be largely
under-exploited. Countries still depend largely on foreign investment or international fishing
agreements for the exploitation of their offshore resources.
(iv) Forestry and agroforestry

Forests and trees indirectly contribute to economic development and food security and sustainable
livelihoods in numerous ways, through support to agricultural systems, their role in rural
development and in maintaining environmental integrity and the provision of opportunities for
income generation and employment. Rural communities, particularly in LDCs, are highly dependent
on forest goods. Wood fuel is the main source of energy in most LDCs, representing up to 90-95
percent of domestic energy consumption. Nonwood forest products (NWFPs) are of major
significance primarily in households and local economies. An estimated 80 percent of the
population in the developing world use NWFPs to meet some of their health and nutritional needs.
Millions of households depend heavily on these products for subsistence consumption and/or
income. Timber and the timber industry are an important source of income and a significant
component of the national economy in LDCs with high forest cover, representing in one case 15
percent of GDP and 35 percent of total export revenue. In LDCs, forest goods and environmental
services are provided almost exclusively by natural ecosystems, which are threatened by
unsustainable exploitation practices and other factors, including inappropriate horizontal
expansion of crop production. The challenge will be to define and develop integrated systems that
ensure sustainable provision by forests and trees of goods and services which are vital to the
livelihoods of the population in LDCs. The foregoing analysis shows that the gap between actual
productivity levels (in terms of land, labour or animal head) in LDCs and what is potentially
achievable is huge. This gap can be defined at three levels: − Average productivity is far below what
could be achieved by using the best practices and technology suitable for the specific location. There
is scope for closing this gap through extension programmes and infrastructure investments; − Yet
further improvements in productivity could be obtained through more applied research
programmes. However, this involves a long time span and requires continuity of support. The
experience of maize in SSA shows that African countries are slow in acquiring the capacity for
developing reliable and cost-effective systems for the delivery of crops from the laboratory to the
field;6 − The difference between productivity derived from scientific innovation and from research
is also high. To close this gap applied adaptive research programmes must be supported by
international and national pre-invention science programmes. Improving agricultural productivity
is associated with the progressive reduction of each of these gaps − starting with the extension gap,
moving on to the research gap and then to the science gap − as the country’s capacity expands for
adopting and developing improved technologies. At this stage of development in the LDCs reducing
the extension and research gaps would be the immediate priorities.
In many developing countries (including LDCs), governments have often intervened in markets in
inappropriate ways and have invested in state-owned production enterprises that have often been inefficient.
Reforms have been undertaken to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and to eliminate marketing
boards and other inefficient regulatory agencies in many countries in recent decades. However, the historical
role of such institutions and the associated provision of these public goods in agriculture has not always been
fully appreciated. Public sector investment in rural schools, in the development of input and output markets, in
agricultural extension and in applied agricultural research have been vital to agricultural development in every
economy in the world. Institutional reform without investment in these public goods does not produce
economic growth in the agricultural sector. Growth is not produced by passive “let the markets work” policies
that do not include critical public investment programmes. Evidence shows that public spending on agricultural
extension and research has a potentially high payoff in LDCs. A recent overview of studies on returns to
investments in research and extension confirmed that the internal rate of return in Africa (which contains the
largest number of LDCs) is rewarding: the median return was 27 percent for extension and 37 percent for
research (Annex Table 7). Therefore, building extension and research capacity is necessary to enable LDCs to
achieve high productivity growth, in line with the experience of many developing countries. As the programmes
are complemented by institutional investments in markets and infrastructure, their effectiveness increases.
Despite their high potential payoff, agricultural research and extension expenditures in almost all LDCs are
very low in per caput terms compared with those in other developing countries or the developed countries. A
recent study by FAO has shown that, in 1989-90, total expenditures on agricultural research in SSA countries
were less than 0.6 percent of agricultural GDP.
Environmental and natural resource sustainability
There is a growing concern that the expansion and intensification of agriculture may lead to degradation of the
natural resource base (soil, water, vegetation and biodiversity) and consequently to a decrease in agricultural
production. However, agricultural intensification per se – i.e. increasing the productivity of land already under
cultivation - should not be a threat. In fact, properly managed intensification is needed to meet agricultural
production needs and reduce the pressure of agricultural expansion in fragile and marginal areas. The lack of
sound management practices and of access to appropriate technology and inputs for agriculture, rather than
intensification, is the most serious cause of environmental degradation. Sustainability of environmental and
natural resources in LDCs is related to a number of factors, such as globalization, inequalities in the
development process, lack of access to science and technology, limited financial means of production and
disrupted traditional institutions and production systems. Moreover, agriculture still functions as an isolated
sector in many LDCs. Increased stress on natural resources, encroachment on marginal lands, migration
towards cities or more developed countries, urban slums, social disintegration and poverty often result from a
lack of services and employment opportunities in rural areas in the LDCs. Population growth and unsustainable
management practices create pressures on the eco-system and jeopardize the ecological balance. The last five
decades of resource over-exploitation in many LDCs have drained reserves of natural capital in many regions
and limited agricultural and livelihood opportunities for future growth. Revitalization of indigenous knowledge
and more research are needed on production methods that preserve natural resources and the environment.
Most importantly, more attention should be given to local participation in decision-making processes for better
interactions of individuals and social groups with the natural ecosystem. There should be financial and other
assistance to help LDCs adapt and acquire appropriate technology. Programmes, including a diagnosis, at
national, sub-national and local level, of areas and populations most exposed to the degradation of land
resources, and with consequences for their livelihood, need to be initiated and implemented jointly by various
stakeholders. Unfortunately, these areas are often left aside by development programmes, as their
rehabilitation is complex and not easy to justify on purely economic grounds. The selection of appropriate
inputs should also be based on solutions that combine traditional knowledge and modern techniques and assist
the farmers in investing in the maintenance of land assets. The integration of environmental considerations
into development planning should be seen as an indispensable element of development strategy in LDCs. It is
not only a means of protecting fragile lands for future agricultural production, but also a mechanism for LDCs,
in particular those in dryland zones, to sustain an important capital of biological diversity and contribute to
solutions to some of the global change issues. Thus, a site-by-site analysis is likely to be required, given that the
interaction between policies that promote a supply response and the manner in which that response will be
achieved (and hence the environmental impact) is likely to be ambiguous.
In sum, it appears that many of the LDCs have relatively abundant agricultural and natural resources that could
provide them with a comparative advantage in a range of agricultural products. These could be developed to
exploit international market opportunities and therefore generate broad-based growth throughout the
economy. There are great opportunities for intensification and productivity enhancement in agriculture. The
next three sub-sections examine domestic and external challenges and constraints that have impeded the full
exploitation of this potential and highlight policy measures for its realization in an effective and sustainable
manner. Human development aspects Developing the human resource potential involves examining the roles
and needs of farmers (both men and women) and other members of the household who may perform diverse
duties and have differing requirements with regard to education, health and nutrition, and technical
knowledge. A low level of human development (as measured by a combination of life expectancy rates,
education attainment rates and standards of living)8 is characteristic of LDCs. Education, training and
extension Education is the main pillar of human development and a major factor in agricultural development.
Research shows that primary education attainments and literacy, training in basic skills and extension services
have an immediate and positive impact on farmers’ productivity. A farmer with four years of elementary
education is, on average, 8.7 percent more productive than one with no education. Moreover, the better he is
educated, the more he stands to gain in income from the use of new technologies and the more rapidly he
adjusts to technological changes. The effects are beneficial to the whole population; more specifically, they
enhance the capacity of the rural population. The quality of education and training in LDCs is low, and the
institutional capacity to carry out reforms and improvements in education and training for agriculture and
rural development is weak. As a result, LDCs have high rates of illiteracy and of children out of school, affecting
most acutely the rural population. Population and health Demographically speaking, the LDCs suffer from a
dangerous combination of population, health and development problems that adds up to a daunting challenge
for their people, their governments and the international community. Current projections indicate that they
will continue to experience a high national rate of population growth, although it could be set back by the AIDS
epidemic, if unchecked. Obviously, the projected increases in overall population numbers will have major
implications for food requirements. For instance, a recent FAO study 9 indicated that in order to maintain, or
slightly improve, present per capita food availability by 2050, food supply would need to be nearly quadrupled
in some LDCs. There are other demographic factors that are likely to be of direct relevance to agriculture and
food security in LDCs. In particular, the increasingly rapid spread of HIV/AIDS in rural areas poses a very
serious problem. The pandemic is unique in comparison with other diseases in that it affects the most
productive age groups: those between 15 and 50 years. It thus has direct quantitative and qualitative effects on
agricultural labour: it greatly reduces the size of the agricultural workforce and its productivity; it changes the
division of labour; and it results in a loss of skills that are important for farming, marketing and management of
resources. The pandemic also directly affects markets for agricultural production by altering the size and
composition of the population to be fed, and limiting its effective demand for food. In addition to being a major
health problem, in recent years HIV/AIDS has been considered a critical socio-economic issue. Its impact is also
related to the fact that it provides an entry point for other diseases, such as tuberculosis and malaria. Increased
levels of morbidity and mortality impoverish affected households and deplete the rural sector at large. This is
likely to lead to declines in agricultural production and to aggravate food shortages and long-term nutritional
deficiencies. The role of rural women in agricultural development Rural women play an important role in
producing the world's staple crops, raising poultry and small animals (sheep, goats, rabbits and guinea pigs),
and providing labour for post-harvest activities. Their role is particularly prominent in LDCs. Wars, increasing
rural-to-urban migration of men in search of paid employment, together with rising mortality attributed to
HIV/AIDS, have led to an increase in the number of female headed households in the developing world. This
'feminization of agriculture' has placed a considerable burden on women's capacity to produce, provide, and
prepare food in the face of already considerable obstacles. FAO studies demonstrate that while women in most
developing countries are the mainstay of agricultural sectors, the farm labour force and food systems (and day-
to-day family subsistence), they have been the last to benefit from - or in some cases have been negatively
affected by - prevailing economic growth and development processes. Gender bias and blindness persist:
farmers are still generally perceived as 'male' by policymakers, development planners and providers of
agricultural services. Women consequently find it more difficult than men to gain access to valuable resources
such as land, credit and agricultural inputs, technology, extension services, training and other services that
would enhance their productive capacity. Overall, women's contribution to agriculture is poorly understood
and their specific needs ignored in development planning. However, women's full potential in agriculture must
be realized if the goal of promoting agricultural and rural development is to be achieved. Information and
communications Information and communications are also essential for sustainable agricultural and rural
development. Investments in rural information systems can improve farmers' knowledge levels and
management skills. Raising the level of awareness, acquiring information, sharing experiences, changing
attitudes and developing skills call for processes of communication and learning. While Internet-based
technologies are spreading rapidly in many developing countries, there is still a serious lack of basic
telecommunications infrastructure. The information gap between the rich and the poor is indeed very wide.
Policies and institutions This sub-section identifies the major policy and institutional measures that have
facilitated or constrained agricultural development in LDCs, with emphasis on those that prevented farmers
from increasing their productivity or output. Macroeconomic policy framework In the past, governments in
LDCs used to carry out many of the functions associated with agriculture: funding, a variety of production,
marketing and distribution services, regulation and in some cases direct involvement in production. More
importantly, the overall effect of government policies was not favourable to the agricultural sector. The
prevailing development paradigm emphasized the importance of extraction of agricultural surplus in favour of
other sectors. Macroeconomic policies, especially exchange rate policies, discriminated against tradables, while
trade policies, by favoring non-agricultural tradables, “tilted” the terms of trade within the tradable sector
against agriculture. More importantly, though, the price-based bias against the agricultural sector was not
compensated by other forms of transfers in favour of rural areas. Since the early 1980s, most LDCs, like many
other developing countries, have been implementing a series reforms both to address macroeconomic
disequilibria and to rectify the distorted inter and intrasectoral price incentives. At the macroeconomic level
and in the context of stabilization programmes, a major change has been a move towards an exchange rate
system better reflecting the scarcity of foreign exchange and a monetary and fiscal policy conducive to
macroeconomic stability. Thus, a major source of anti-agricultural bias has been addressed but not necessarily
entirely removed. And steps towards macroeconomic reform have not been uniform in all countries. At the
sectoral level, steps have been taken to remove distortionary barriers to the functioning of markets, and
towards privatization of processing, marketing and distribution activities. The diversity in the contents and in
the implementation of reform “packages” makes it impossible to undertake an overall evaluation of their
impacts on agriculture (by e.g. comparing pre-and post-adjustment growth in agriculture or countries which
adjusted and those that did not). With respect to macroeconomic policies, it is nevertheless relevant to note
that in a number of LDCs which experienced buoyant agricultural growth, macroeconomic policies brought
about an increasingly competitive exchange rate and more realistic interest rates.11 A stable macro-economy,
by promoting investor confidence, constitutes an essential characteristic of an overall growth environment,
which in turn induces an expansion of the internal market for agricultural commodities. A competitive
exchange rate promotes agricultural exports. As for sectoral policies, the limited cross-country evidence on the
impact of sectoral policy reform on agriculture has shown that, while improving the structure of price
incentives facing agricultural producers is important, it does not address all the constraints which prevent
agriculture from realizing its productive potential. In fact, examination of a number of successful and sustained
agricultural growth experiences shows that, in certain periods, output growth has taken place even though the
structure of price incentives was not favourable to agriculture.12 The principal difference between these
success stories and others, where price discrimination against agriculture resulted in the stagnation of the
sector, is that, despite price distortions, there was nevertheless a government (and donor) commitment to
building rural infrastructure and promoting agricultural research and other public services, which more than
compensated for the loss caused by distorted price incentives.
Thus, the major lesson that emerges from country experiences is that for agricultural growth to occur, a
number of factors need to be in place which address the “handicap” of the rural sector in terms of
infrastructure, social services, technology, marketing infrastructure, and seasonal credit availability, along with
the building of an appropriate institutional environment. There is no unique policy prescription that fits the
diversity of the agricultural sector in the LDCs. While enhancing productivity is a common essential
requirement, the nature of the increase in productivity envisaged will determine the appropriate policy mix.
For example, in countries seeking increased productivity through shifts to commodities with a higher income
elasticity of demand (such as fruits and vegetables) and through improved access to dynamic markets (both
domestic and external), an appropriate institutional environment, market information and assistance in
meeting health and sanitation standards are some of the possible elements of policy. In addition, the
multiplicity of linkages of agriculture to the broader rural sector and rural non-farm activities suggests that
agricultural policy should not be confined to the narrow limits of the agricultural sector strictly defined, but
should consider also the impact of policy on the rural space for which agriculture (especially in LDCs) is the
central activity (see the section on interlinkages below). In several countries reforms have not been properly
sequenced so as to ensure their efficiency. In designing policies and programmes governments have often
concentrated on exchange rates, domestic price liberalization and privatization of public enterprises, while
downplaying other policies and factors affecting agriculture, such as an accompanying adequate improvement
in infrastructure, technology and marketing facilities. Inadequate design and sequencing of reforms, and an
unstable policy environment, have thus been major sources of the difficulties faced by the reform programmes
in many LDCs.
Agricultural and rural development institutions, infrastructure and support services
(i) Markets Rural infrastructure in most LDCs is rudimentary, with semi subsistence farming often
dominating agricultural activities. Lack of or difficult access to markets is common to most LDCs.
Even where rural markets exist they are notoriously imperfect, and when they are totally absent it
is difficult for farmers to sell their produce and thus ensure food security for their families. An initial
requirement is frequently thus the development of these rural markets. Difficulties that have been
cited in the operation of commodity markets include remoteness of producers from markets, poor
quality of the produce, high transport costs (because of high energy prices and weak
infrastructure), lack of competition among traders and poor organization of producers, lack of
information on market conditions, lack of clear market rules and their poor enforcement, as well as
sharp price fluctuations during the year.
(ii) Rural financial services Financial services in rural areas are often poorly developed. The channelling
of cheap credit through state agricultural development banks was characterized by low repayment
rates, poor targeting and low operational and managerial efficiency and thus was limited in terms of
outreach and sustainability. Often subsidized credit has been misused and channelled towards the
introduction of technological packages that were not adapted to local farming systems and for
which no effective demand existed. Poor assessment of marketing possibilities and profitability and
the limited loan repayment capacities of the borrowers often explain the high rate of loan defaults,
reinforced by periodic debt waivers advocated through political pressure. In contrast, private
commercial banks charge high interest rates, especially to small farmers in regions with low
population densities. The consequently high costs of borrowing are further increased by an
unstable macroeconomic environment involving, inter alia, high annual inflation rates. In addition,
poor rural infrastructure and communication systems, ineffective extension services, and
inappropriate macroeconomic and sectoral policies raise the costs of inputs and marketing, further
reducing the profitability of farming. Linkages between farmer and trader and other arrangements
with enterprises in the agribusiness chain, such as contract farming, can overcome many of these
constraints. Experiences with microfinance institutions highlight the crucial importance of client
orientation in the provision of financial services and the use of market- based interest rates that
cover the full costs of lending. Poor people seem to prefer a reliable and timely availability of loan
finance, even at higher costs, to an untimely and bureaucratic supply of subsidized credit that is tied
to specific uses. However, the specific nature of agriculture, such as seasonal credit demand for
annual crops and high risks, reduces the role of current microfinance institutions and their lending
methods in financing the seasonal and on-farm investment needs of small farmers.
(iii) Availability of farm inputs Information gathered through FAO’s Special Programme for Food
Security (SPFS) projects in 22 of the low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) shows that a major
problem facing farmers is the unavailability of fertilizers and agro-chemicals, and often of animal
feed, on time or in the quantity required. This constraint is largely linked to the lack of credit,
difficulties in obtaining foreign exchange, the seasonality of agricultural input requirements, spatial
dispersion of farmers, poor transport infrastructure and, sometimes, to the marketing and
management inefficiencies of the state-owned companies responsible for single-channel input
supply and marketing. Quality seeds are also said to be available in insufficient quantities,
particularly in Africa and Asia. The informal seed supply system is the dominant source of
seed/planting materials for resource-poor farmers in marginal areas and has proven to cope better
with a disaster situation compared to the formal seed sector. Nevertheless, the informal seed supply
sector has unfortunately received very little attention and financial support from policy makers, to
the detriment of the productivity of small-scale farmers. Therefore, without strengthening seed
supply systems in developing countries there will be little or no technology transfer to improve
crop productivity and hence the livelihoods and well being of poor and vulnerable households in
rural communities. In some countries, there are worries that the genetic base of certain cereals has
become too narrow, especially as local varieties have been given less importance or suppressed.
Absence of improved animal breeds and insufficient livestock treatment facilities are also reported
in some cases. Another institutional constraint is inefficient use and distribution of water, which is
usually blamed on poor management of irrigation schemes and inadequate water distribution
arrangements, which result in an uneven and untimely distribution of water among farmers. In
many LDCs, the management of irrigation schemes and water distribution is under public control.
Farmers’ associations are rarely involved or are too weak to contribute to both the design of water
distribution systems and the maintenance of the network. The water needs of farmers have to be
examined from both the household and production-for-export aspects, since the particular use
affects the quality of life of both men and women and their communities.
(iv) Agricultural research and extension In most LDCs, the institutional capacity for research and
extension is weak. As a result, the technology available is insufficiently adapted to local conditions
and research results do not come up with a variety of technological solutions adapted to the range
of socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions existing in the country, such as the differing
technical needs of female and male farmers. Lack of technological alternatives is often mentioned as
a constraint to irrigation development (e.g. different models of irrigation pumps, suited to the needs
of different users). Where techniques and technologies developed by research are available, their
dissemination is faced with a number of difficulties such as the poor delivery of the extension and
training services that are not necessarily targeted to the appropriate users.
Weak extension and training services and the consequent lack of technological knowledge of farmers are often
considered to be the major factors behind the insufficient adoption of improved technologies. This constraint
could be overcome by improving farmers’ access to knowledge. For example, valuable information can be
obtained from some of the extension materials on FAO's Ecoport web pages. (v) Social and cultural factors The
development and adoption of high-production technology has also been constrained by a number of social and
cultural factors, including:
− Insecurity of land tenure and fragmentation of land holdings in some LDCs, particularly in Africa, especially
with regard to women, who may have little or no access to land, depending on custom or formal laws that
regulate the tenure practices;
− The low level of education, which is an obstacle to raising the technological capacity of farmers from its
currently low levels and to the adoption of new technologies. Education for both boys, girls and adult women is
often lacking. This constraint is considered to be particularly acute for women. For example, the lack of
farmers' bookkeeping skills makes it more difficult for them to appreciate the advantages of improved
technologies;
− The risk-averse tendencies of farmers, which have been generally underestimated, particularly when they
have not been involved in the decision-making process on the development and use of new products. Farmers
have sometimes hampered the adoption of new technologies and management practices, especially when their
traditional livelihoods and associated local traditions have been threatened. For example, high variability of
yield of certain improved varieties has been a constraint to their adoption by poor farmers bordering on the
subsistence level. It is essential that both male and female farmers be involved in the entire process of
developing new high-yield varieties and associated technologies, in order to ensure a greater acceptance and
adoption by those who stand to benefit most;
− Since educational attainment has a direct impact on the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour of farmers,
low educational attainment in LDCs is reflected in the great difficulty in changing farmers’ attitude and
behaviour to cope with the new policy reforms. The reforms implemented since the early 1980s have involved
drastic changes in the environment in which producers operate. While they were relatively passive actors
before policy reform, they have now to take initiatives and organize themselves. Post-production activities Lack
of good quality roads as well as insufficient storage facilities have been identified as major constraints in many
LDCs, sometimes resulting in crops remaining unsold. Failure of the transport infrastructure in some LDCs to
move food grains from surplus to deficit areas during periods of localized drought illustrates the severity of
transport bottlenecks and agricultural market segmentation. Inadequate communication facilities tend to limit,
for many producers, the possibilities of access to markets and market information, as well as to make access to
inputs more difficult and costly, and lower producers’ returns. The absence of storage facilities amplifies
seasonal market fluctuations and the level of post-harvest losses, which in some cases can be as high as 30
percent of total production. Food safety and quality standards Ensuring the safety and quality of foods in
developing countries is of paramount importance not only from the point of view of public health but also to
improve the competitiveness of their food products in the international market. Their control systems and
institutions suffer from a number of weaknesses which make them ineffective in ensuring consumer protection
and benefiting from the post-Uruguay Round trading regime. These weaknesses concern all the basic elements
of a national food control system, i.e. food legislation, food inspection, quality assurance at the production level
and testing capabilities (human and physical) to control the quality and safety of the food supply. The following
actions are needed to enhance the capacity of developing countries to meet the requirements set out in the
relevant WTO Agreements, thus ensuring consumer protection and promoting food trade, internally and
externally:
− Capacity building to implement the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and to fulfil other new international and
domestic requirements on standards;
− Developing national capacities for risk assessment; designing domestic regulations and policies for export,
food and agribusiness development;
− Promoting regional cooperation and enhancing coherence in trade policies and domestic regulations on
standards;
− Development of national food safety regulations and standards without distorting international trade; −
Enhancing the participation of developing countries in international standard-setting bodies;
− Collection of relevant information for national capacity building and policy making;
− Improving the negotiating stance in international trade negotiations Investment in agriculture Least-
developed countries face a major domestic resource gap in generating the investments needed to achieve their
developmental objectives in agriculture, including the target of reducing the number of under-nourished
people by 2015. The concept of investment to augment the productive capacity of agriculture entails not only
physical assets, but also science and technology dissemination, human capital enhancement and social capital
build-up. Creating a pro-investment climate to raise productivity levels and achieve the necessary structural
changes is a major policy challenge.
Demand Issues
Trends in consumption
Domestic consumption (human consumption and other uses) of agricultural products in LDCs varies widely
between food and non-food products. Non-food products such as raw materials and tropical beverages are
basically produced for export. The little that goes to the domestic market is destined essentially for local
processing industries, which in turn export the bulk of their produce. In contrast, the domestic consumption of
food products is a large and growing proportion of output. Consumption of basic foodstuffs in LDCs grew by an
annual 2.3 percent during 1990-97 (Annex Table 1), below the population growth rate of 2.6 percent. The
consumption of cereals met by domestic production declined from 96 percent in 1970-80 to 85 percent in
1990-98.
For many commodities, production has not kept up, and perhaps will not keep up, with demand. For example,
during the 1960s LDCs were net exporters of rice (2.4 million tonnes), but by the mid-1990s they were
importing 3.5 million tonnes, a figure that is projected to rise to over 7.5 million tonnes by 2015. Similarly, net
imports of wheat increased from 1.1 million tonnes in 1961-63 to 6.1 million tonnes in 1995-97 and are
projected to reach 15 million tonnes by 2015. Cassava and plantains, the main staple food in many African
LDCs, also showed an increase in net imports in the 1990s.
In sum, trends in production, consumption and trade amply demonstrate the increasing import dependence of
LDCs for food. FAO projections for 2015 suggest that this dependence will continue to increase. If the requisite
commercial imports cannot be ensured, or if food aid cannot make up for the shortfall, per caput food
consumption will inevitably fall.
Determining factors and constraints

There are three determinants of demand growth: population, per caput income, and the income elasticity of
demand. For LDCs as a whole, real GNP per caput has been stable over the last two decades. Between 1989-91
and 1995-97, in only 20 out of the 40 LDCs for which comparable data are available did it rise. This suggests
that the increase in cereal consumption in most LDCs during 1990-98 was due mainly to population growth.
Population growth rates in LDCs are among the highest in the world. For LDCs as a whole, the rate increased
from an annual 2.5 percent in 1980-90 to 2.6 percent in 1990-96 and is projected to remain high (2.3 percent)
during 2000-2015. Their food security is thus threatened unless production performance and/or food import
capacity can be improved significantly over the levels of the past 10 years.
The capacity to import food is determined by the availability of foreign exchange, which in turn is determined
by export earnings (essentially from commodities for most LDCs) and by the external resource flow. Many LDCs
suffered because of the fall in prices of their primary commodity exports during 1990-98. The foreign debt
burden also limits the ability of many LDCs to import, and the situation has been compounded by the slowing
down of the external resource flow.
Food security
The interaction between food supply and demand factors determines the level of food adequacy. The most
widely available and used indicator for estimating food adequacy levels is per caput dietary energy supply
(DES), which measures the food available to each person on average in a country. As shown in Table 2 and
Annex Table 8, the DES for LDCs as a group has been very low and has barely risen since 1979. For roughly half
of the 44 LDCs for which data are available it has been below 2 100 kcal/day. This stands in contrast to the
progress in other developing countries and the world as a whole, where food production has continued to
outstrip population growth.
FAO estimates show that the incidence of chronic undernutrition (undernourishment)14 is high in LDCs
(Annex Table 9). Between 1969-71 and 1996-98, the proportion of undernourished in total population in LDCs
increased from 38 percent to 40 per cent, while the absolute number of undernourished is estimated to have
increased from 116 million to 235 million.
Interlinkages: Agricultural Growth, Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation
Nature of the linkages

With 70 percent of the world’s extremely poor and food-insecure people living in rural areas, the role of
agricultural and rural development in the eradication of poverty and food insecurity is crucial. As agriculture is
the predominant economic activity in rural areas, the rural poor strongly depend on it for their income and
food entitlements. The dependence is most marked in countries where food insecurity is most widespread, and
where there often exists a combination of low incomes, a food deficit and high external indebtedness. Most such
countries are LDCs.
National experience of economic growth and poverty alleviation reveals that: i) poverty alleviation is positively
related to overall economic development; ii) agricultural growth in developing countries has stronger effects
on poverty alleviation than growth in other sectors; iii) it alleviates poverty mainly through the labour market,
especially through increases in wages; iv) its impact on poverty reduction lessens if there is growing income
inequality; and v) rural growth reduces both urban and rural poverty.
The potential for agricultural growth to alleviate rural poverty in the LDCs is exemplified by the fact that, on
average, agriculture employs about 75 percent of the total labour force (over 80 percent in several cases) and
that the percentage of poor in the rural areas is generally much higher than in the urban areas (see Annex Table
10). Hence, agricultural growth can increase the income of the poor both directly, through the additional
demand for labour, and indirectly, through input, output and expenditure linkages with non-farm productive
activities in the rural sector.
The rural non-farm sector constitutes the connecting link between agriculture, rural development and rural
poverty alleviation. In many low income countries, it is expected to be closely linked to agriculture in numerous
upstream and downstream productive activities. Earnings from participation in such activities may constitute a
substantial share of the overall income of rural populations. Annex Table 11 shows data on nonfarm income
and its distribution (when available) by (a) income percentiles (b) zones, according to the type of agricultural
production; and (c) types of product cultivated. It covers a limited number of LDCs in Africa and Asia for which
data are available.
Thus, farm and non-farm rural activities should be considered complementary in terms of financing investment
in both sectors: savings derived from farm activities can constitute start-up capital for rural nonfarm activities;
at the same time, savings derived from non-farm activities can be used to acquire inputs and adopt improved
agricultural technologies.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PREDICTIVE MODEL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Adaptation from: Gil, Nelfa C., Gil, Allen Glen C., Paloma, Lorelie J. & Hufalar, Annabelle M. 2019. Socio-Economic Predictive
Model of Agricultural Production; Southern Leyte State University, Sogod, Southern Leyte; paper presented during the
National Conference on Poverty Alleviation & Sustainable Development (iPovCon2019) Sept. 25-27, 2019
Exponential growth in world population coupled with mathematical growth in production greatly
contribute to challenging food security. Despite being an agricultural country, food insufficiency continues to
prevail. The competition and exploitation on the use of natural resources, in addition to the threats brought
about by climate change greatly affect the overall capacity of humanity to produce food (Godfray et. al., 2010).
Climate change brings various negative and positive effects in agriculture and offers disadvantages and
advantages depending on the vulnerability of the geographic location, thus good economic policy plays a vital
role in adaptation and mitigation (Olesen and Bindi, 2002).
A number of different biological, environmental, physiological, and social factors can influence
agricultural production. These factors are broad yet and do not provide specific variable or indicator where
specific intervention may be directed. Identifying and ascertaining the more specific regressors or drivers will
pave way to a more guided intervention. Once these various drivers are identified, better socio-economic
(national/local) policy may be crafted to establish a holistic approach for agricultural improvement because
“structural change and micro-economic relations give unique role in economic development and poverty
reduction” (Dorward et. al., 2002). Socio-economic policies at the local level, by and large, affect micro-level
agricultural production. Agricultural endowments predict inequality and inequality predicts development and
high inequality is a significant barrier to prosperity (Easterly, 2006; Easterly and Levine, 2003). With the
employment of data mining technique, available data sets from the Philippine Statistics Agency (PSA), were
explored to extract predictors of agricultural production. With the socio-economic regressors, a regression
model can be established to provide insights/inputs for crafting policy to enhance/improve agricultural
production.
Correlation of the Response and Regressor Variables
The three predicting variables (X1 number of financial institution, X2 crime rate, X3 graduates in
agriculture and allied fields) have significantly strong positive association to the response variable, agricultural
production (Fig. 3). Likewise, they are positively correlated with each other. There is a reason to believe that
the response and the prediction variables are having significant strong linear relationship.
Subset Determination
The best subset regression translated to five (5) best subsets with goodness of fit ranging from
R2=86.6% to 99.3%. The result reveals that among three variables considered as drivers of agricultural
production, the most important element is the financial institutions (R2=98.5%). Its presence and/or
availability as well as accessibility in significant political territory offers high probability of improving
agricultural production or development, in general. When “financial institution” is paired with “crime rate”, the
goodness of fit is improved to R2=99.0% while when it is paired with the “graduates in agriculture and allied
fields” the goodness of fit is R2=99.3%, which is the same as when the three variables are combined
(R2=99.3%). However, if the “number of agriculture and allied fields graduates” alone is considered, the
goodness of fit is lower at R2=86.6%. Having a slight difference between the “financial institutions” and the “its
combination with “graduates in agriculture and allied field”, the former hypothetically has a major contribution
in agricultural production. The economic policy implication of this result is that the government is well guided
on what to prioritize in its agricultural development plan. Mainstreaming this policy potentially minimizes
certain wastage in the appropriation of limited budget/resources.
Linear Regression Analyses and Models of Agricultural Production
The four best subsets were subjected to linear regression analysis and established the respective model.
Model 1 (Fig. 5), which considers only financial institution (X 1) as the predicting variable, proves that the model
is statistically significant (P-Value=.000). The goodness of fit marks a very high predictive power (R 2=98.53%)
which means that the number of financial institution explains 98.5% (P-Value=.000) of the variation in
agricultural production. For every unit increase or decrease in the financial institution, it can forecast an
increase or decrease of 84.76M value of agricultural production (ceteris paribus) due to their positively linear
relationship.
This result supports to the findings of Claessens and Perotti (2005) that financial sector aids economic
growth, thus investment and policy reforms should be improved and broadened (Rosegrant and Cline, 2003)
especially in countries with high inequality because there is a positive correlation between production changes
and level of agricultural support (Hertel and Randhir, 2000).
When the number of financial institution is paired with crime rate (Fig. 6), it likewise translated to a
statistically significant model (Model 2 - P-Value=0.000). Model 2 offers almost 99.0% predictive power and
the two predicting variables are significant contributors (P-Values of 0.000 and 0.031, respectively) to the
response variable. Model 2 predicts that for every unit increase in the financial institution, 93.56M value
increase of agricultural production can be expected, having crime rate at constant. Crime rate on the other
hand has a negative relationship with agricultural production, that for every percent increase or decrease of it
can predict a 111.3M value decrease or increase in agricultural production, holding financial institution
constant.
Comparing the forecast values of agricultural production between Model 1 and Model 2, the latter offers
higher (93.56M vs. 84.76M) values for financial institutions, however, considering crime rate in Model 2, it can
significantly influence (P-Value=0.031) agricultural production at higher decreased value of -111.3M when the
same increased by 1%, ceteris paribus. This implies that along with the provision of financial institution, crime
rate has to be controlled. If conflict persists, there are substantial losses of physical, financial, social, and
human capital and as a consequence, conflict leave a legacy of structural poverty (Ibañ ez and Moya, 2010; Kelly,
2000;) which conversely translate to poor agricultural production. This suggest that for local government
units, it is very indispensable to insure peace and order while financial institutions provide source of capital for
investment and agricultural producers perform production activities.
Model 3 provides a combination of financial institution and graduates in agriculture and allied fields
(X2) (Fig. 7). The model is also statistically significant (P-Value=0.000) with an even better goodness of fit
(R2=99.3%). Likewise, X2 is a significant contributor to agricultural production (P-Value=0.000), however, its
relationship with the response variable is negative. This means that the more number of graduates in
agriculture and allied fields there is, the lesser their involvement in agricultural production which decreases
the production values. It is interesting to note that this inverse relationship exist in this model because it is
normally assumption that the agricultural graduates are the hope of agricultural production (Bawden et al.,
1984). The essence of this result conforms to Alonge and Martin (1995) that education in sustainable
agriculture is a continuous process of assessment and analysis to be fully inculcated within the individual and
that the level of formal education is not a significant factor of actual yield (Kalirajan and Shand, undated).
Unattractive reality of aspects in agriculture such as meager average landholding of farmers, high input costs,
pests and diseases, etc. and a lucrative off-farm earnings might have hindered the process of full inculcation.
Yang (1997) pointed out that generally more educated farmers oftentimes first supply family labor off the farm
although knowledge was contributed to farm management. As a consequence, there is a higher value added per
worker in non-agri sector creating a large “agricultural productivity gap” (Gollin et al., 2013) and predicts a
“negative link” (Matsuyama, 1992). Model 3 estimates that for every unit increase in the number of graduates
in agriculture and allied fields, there shall be a 1.909M value decrease in agricultural production, ceteris
paribus. The result suggests that agriculture graduates are not really going into where and what they are
expected to contribute to the country after graduation.
The final Model 4, provides a combination of the three regressor variables (Fig. 8). It is a statistically
significant model which also reflect two statistically significant variables namely, financial institution and
graduates in agriculture and allied fields. It is can be gleaned from Fig. 8 that crime rate (X 2) becomes a non-
significant (P-Value=0.175) contributor to the overall model as opposed in Model 2. However, despite its non-
significant contribution to the overall model, the predictive power improved a bit from 99.3% when crime rate
is out of the equation to almost 99.4% which means that the variation in agricultural production can be
explained by the three mentioned predictors. This implies that crime rate should still be checked if along other
variables because in the real world, peace and order of a political unit matters. Farmers/producers will not be
encouraged to work or cannot work at all if their farms or places are having peace and order-related problems.
There is a forecasted increase of 111.36M values in agricultural production when the number of
financial institution is increased by a unit, holding other regressors constant. Moreover, there is an expected
decrease of 59.6M production values when crime rate increase by a percent per 100k population, ceteris
paribus. Lastly, there is an estimated 1.471M decrease in production values when the number of graduates in
agriculture and related fields increase by a unit, considering other factors constant (Fig.8). This negative
correlation of production and the number of graduates in agriculture and related fields implies that not a
majority of the graduates in agriculture and related fields are contributing to agricultural production.
Overall synthesis of the four models points toward policy on proper prioritization in agricultural
development efforts. In the real world, there are certain other non-socioeconomic regressors of agricultural
production that need to be implemented in synergy with the socioeconomic variables considered in this study.
For policy makers the relevance of this result is to establish a platform of agricultural development which is
scientifically anchored. Applications of this platform may be meaningful in areas where there are
underdeveloped agricultural land where sources of capital for investment is needed. Likewise, the platform is
applicable in calamity-stricken communities where farmers/producers need to start all over again with only
land as their starting/initial resource. Priority provision should be on financial institutions or government
financial assistance/subsidy to farmers. Other drivers can follow like making sure that the farms and places are
in good peace and order situation, and intensification of campaign for agriculture and related fields. Other
variables which actually yielded strong correlation and fit (population, transportation, and electrification) can
follow for considerations in the development of a socio-economic policy.
Lesson 2. THE ROLE OF FISHERY TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT
Lesson Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
1. Discussed the importance of fisheries and aquaculture to sustainable development; and

2. Identified specific trends in aquaculture and fisheries and related to present local situation.
Lesson Content
THE IMPORTANCE OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE TO DEVELOPMENT

FISHERIES, SUSTAINABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
Adaptation from: Cambria Finegold. Fisheries, aquaculture and development
Despite the significant contributions that fisheries and aquaculture make to employment, nutrition, and trade
in the developing world, they are rarely included in national development policy and donor priorities. This is
largely due to problems with valuation of small-scale fisheries, as policy makers often do not have access to
data which reflect the importance of fisheries and aquaculture to development. The stagnation or decline of
capture fishery production in many parts of the world underscores the importance of fisheries policy, however,
as the current state of stocks can be at least partially attributed to the difficulties of regulating fisheries and
preventing their overexploitation. Even with improvements in regulation, however, pressures on capture
fisheries will remain, due to continued population growth. Further development of sustainable aquaculture and
improvements in the post-harvest sector to reduce losses could help to maintain fish supply and the
contribution of fish to development.
EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION AND TRADE
While data on fisheries in developing countries are often patchy1, it is nevertheless possible to identify trends
in the importance of fisheries and aquaculture for developing countries, particularly in the areas of
employment, consumption, and trade.
Employment
Employment in fishing and aquaculture has grown rapidly over the past few decades, increasing more than
threefold from 13 million people in 1970 to over 41 million in 2004 (Figure 1). Employment in the fisheries
sector has grown more rapidly than both world population and employment in agriculture. Most of this growth
is in Asia, where over 85 percent of the world’s fisherfolk live, and is largely due to the expansion of
aquaculture in this period (FAO 2006, FAO 1999).
While the number of people employed in fisheries and aquaculture in developing countries has been growing
steadily, it has been stagnant or declining in most industrialised countries. This decline has been most
pronounced in capture fisheries, while employment in aquaculture has increased in some industrialized
countries.
Millions of women in developing countries are employed in fisheries and aquaculture, participating at all stages
in both commercial and artisanal fisheries, though most heavily in fish processing and marketing. In capture
fisheries, women are commonly involved in making and repairing nets, baskets and pots, baiting hooks, setting
traps and nets, fishing from small boats and canoes, and collecting seaweed, bivalves, molluscs and pearls. They
are rarely involved in commercial offshore and deep-water fishing. In aquaculture, women feed and harvest
fish, attend to fish ponds, and collect fingerlings and prawn larvae. Women play a major role in fish processing
in many parts of the world, both using traditional preservation methods and working in commercial processing
plants.
In addition to affecting food supply, the status of fish stocks in capture fisheries is likely to threaten the
livelihoods of small-scale fisherfolk and traditional fish processors as competition for limited resources
increases. Larger-scale operators with greater access to capital and gear are already emerging in many areas,
leading to changes in the structure and location of post-harvest activities and concentrating ownership and
control of resources. In India, for example, fishing practices are changing with rising investment, and higher
levels of mechanization and motorization are leading to greater centralization of landings and competition over
the catch. In the past, small-scale traders were able to purchase fish from local fishers at decentralized beach-
based landings, sometimes accessing fish through husbands or taking the fish on credit and paying once they
had sold it. The increasing centralization of landings, however, has led to fierce competition at landing sites,
favoring those with greater access to credit and infrastructure and marginalising traditional fish processors
and petty traders (FAO 2007).
Production and consumption

Data on fisheries in developing countries often do not fully account for artisanal and subsistence production, as
the magnitude of the landings of these fisheries is not generally known by the responsible fisheries
administration. It seems clear, however, that capture fisheries worldwide are currently being fished at or near
capacity, and that further growth in fish production will come primarily from aquaculture. FAO (2006)
estimates that marine capture fisheries production will remain between 80 and 90 million tons per year, and
freshwater fisheries, which face environmental degradation and competition for use of freshwater resources
from other sectors such as hydropower and agriculture, are unlikely to expand significantly either.
Per capita fish supply in low-income food deficit countries (LIFDCs) (excluding China) has increased from 5.0 to
8.3 kg since 1960, due primarily to the growth of aquaculture and to increased production from inland capture
fisheries in developing countries (FAO 2007). In sub Saharan Africa, however, per capita fish supply is
declining, dropping from a peak of 9.9 kg in 1982 to 7.6 kg in 2003. This is due to rapid population growth,
stagnant capture fishery production, and the slow expansion of aquaculture in the region (FAO 2006).
Demand for fish continues to increase in most of the world – in line with population growth as well as increases
in consumption of animal protein associated with urbanization and rising incomes. In developed countries,
demand for high-value carnivorous species such as salmon and shrimp has also increased, largely due to
income growth and urbanization, as well as a shift in preferences away from red meat and towards fisheries
products (Delgado, Wada, Rosegrant, Meijer and Ahmed 2003).
Trade
A large portion of fish production is destined for export, around 40 percent of global production being traded
internationally, and exports from developing countries accounting for some 60 percent of this (see Ababouch,
this volume). They are now net exporters of fish to developed countries, having shifted dramatically from being
net importers (over 1.2 million metric tons in 1985) over the past two decades (Delgado et al. 2003).
Over 30 percent of fishery commodity production in developing countries is destined for export (FAO 2005a),
and it is an important source of foreign exchange for many countries, including Chile, Mozambique, Senegal,
and Thailand. While industrial fishing activity continues to produce a significant portion of fisheries exports in
some countries, much of the recent increase in exports from developing countries has come from small-scale
fisheries. Much of this is driven by rising demand for high-quality demersal fish in developed countries. The
rapid growth in contribution of fish to total export earnings in Uganda (from less than one percent in 1990 to
17 percent in 2002), for example, was based largely on artisanal fishing of Nile perch in Lake Victoria (FAO
2007).
An increasing amount of trade in fish products is between developing countries, however, rather than from
developing to developed countries. Demand for fish in developing countries continues to grow, due both to
population growth and increased per capita consumption, while overall demand in developed countries
(including the USSR) has stagnated since 1985. While there is increasing demand for higher value fish in
developing countries, low-value fish continue to make up the bulk of fish consumed there, and they are
projected to remain net exporters of high value finfish and importers of low-value food fish (Delgado et al.
2003).
International trade in fisheries products has been shown to have a positive effect on food security in many
developing countries, stimulating increased production, generating foreign exchange which can be used for
food imports, and enhancing the trade-based entitlements of people engaged in fishing and fish processing.
Much of the discussion around the food security impact of international fish trade has focused on whether fish
production for export reduces the amount of fish available for local consumption, presenting fish exports as a
trade-off between foreign exchange earnings and domestic food security. Such a perspective, however, fails to
take into account that foreign exchange from fish exports helps to finance imports of other foods, including fish
products, and that production for export helps to raise the incomes of poor fisherfolk and people employed in
fish processing, enabling them to achieve greater food security through enhanced purchasing power. In
Thailand, for example, a decrease in rural poverty has been attributed to the export orientation of the fisheries
sector and concomitant increase in the incomes of poor fishers. Fish processing for export can also generate
employment, particularly among young women, though export-orientation in fisheries reduces the quantity of
fish available to traditional fish processors (typically middle-aged women with little education), affecting their
livelihoods.
Fisheries in development policy
The contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to development has consistently been underestimated both in
national development and poverty reduction strategies and in international cooperation. FAO (2005b) identify
two factors which influence the degree to which fisheries are included in development policy in a given
country: the sector’s contribution to foreign exchange earnings and its contribution to food security and
nutrition (measured by dependence on fish protein). The more reliant a country is on fisheries for its foreign
exchange earnings and food security, the argument goes, the more likely that policy makers will recognise their
importance and that this will be reflected in development policy. As farming and terrestrial livestock often both
generate more foreign exchange and are perceived to make a larger contribution to food security than other
renewable resource sectors such as forestry and fisheries, they generally receive much more attention in
national development strategies and donor priorities.
When faced with resource allocation decisions, many governments prioritise water use for human
consumption, agriculture, hydropower, and industry over inland fisheries and aquaculture. This is largely
attributable to the perceived contribution of each sector to development, but also to the prevalence of single
water-use systems. Encouraging multiple uses of water, however, can increase its productivity and allow for
simultaneous development of several sectors. Use of freshwater for aquaculture and agriculture, for example, is
not necessarily mutually ex- clusive, and integrated aquaculture-agriculture (IAA) systems have been shown to
increase the productivity of agricultural activities on farms which have ponds. IAA ponds also contribute to the
resilience of small farms, enabling them to maintain some degree of food production during droughts
(Brummett 2006). The data problems identified in the first section also contribute to poor recognition of the
contributions of fisheries to development. Since data on artisanal, subsistence and inland production, fish-
based livelihoods and consumption patterns in developing countries tend to be fairly sketchy, they often under-
represent the contribution of fisheries to development. Thus the perceived contribution of fish to foreign
exchange earnings and food security is often lower than their actual contribution, further reducing the chances
that fisheries and aquaculture will be adequately addressed in development policy.
Development aspects of health and nutrition
Even when consumed in small quantities, fish often comprises a nutritionally important part of many people’s
diets in developing countries. It is a vital source of protein and micronutrients, and improves the quality of
protein in largely vegetable and starch-based diets by providing essential amino acids. FAO (2006) has
estimated that fish accounts for approximately 20 percent of animal protein consumption in LIFDCs. In some
coastal and island countries (including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Senegal, and Sri Lanka), it provides over 50
percent of animal protein, and reaches 62 percent in Gambia and 63 percent in Sierra Leone and Ghana. It is a
particularly important component of the diets of the poor, as it is often the most affordable form of animal
protein.
Fish is also rich in iron, zinc, magnesium, phosphorous, calcium, vitamin A and vitamin C, and marine fish is a
good source of iodine. Many of these vital nutrients are found only in small amounts, if at all, in staple foods
such as maize, rice and cassava which make up the bulk of people’s diets in developing countries. Fish are an
indispensable source of these nutrients for many people, and small low-value fish, which are largely consumed
by the rural poor, provide more minerals than the same quantity of meat or large fish, as they are consumed
whole, with the bones intact. Fish also contain fatty acids which are essential for the development of the brain
and body, and are particularly crucial for the diets of babies, children, and pregnant and lactating women
(WorldFish Center 2005a). Consumption of omega-3 fatty acids during pregnancy reduces the risk of low birth
weight, which is a key factor in both maternal and child mortality. These acids are also critical for the
neurological development of infants, and are found almost exclusively in fish, making the consumption of fish
during lactation and pregnancy especially important.
The nutritional benefits of fish consumption are also particularly important for people living with HIV/AIDS.
Proper nutrition is essential for the effectiveness of anti-retroviral drugs, and fish has also been shown to
contain combinations of nutrients which reduce susceptibility to secondary diseases.
Fish and the Millennium Development Goals
Fish, being a “rich food for poor people”, is well placed to make an important contribution to the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). While the most obvious contribution is in terms of food security and livelihoods, it
also has an important nutritional role in reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating
HIV/ AIDS and other diseases. Fish also contribute indirectly to several of the other MDGs through improved
nutritional status and enhanced livelihoods, and to gender equality through women’s fish-related livelihood
activities (see box).
Small-scale fish farming requires less labour than many other livelihood activities, and can be carried out by
female and child-headed households and people living with HIV/AIDS, providing them with fish to eat and sell
without substantially adding to their labour burden. The income obtained from the fish which are sold can
enable the poor to access health care services, including HIV/AIDS treatment (WorldFish Center 2005b).
RECENT TRENDS IN AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES

Adaptation from: Robert Arthur (MRAG), Chris Béné (IDS), William Leschen and David Little (UoS Hannah Norbury (MRAG).
2013. Fisheries and aquaculture and their potential roles in development: an assessment of the current evidence
In 2010 global capture fisheries and aquaculture from both marine and inland waters produced 148 million
tonnes of fish, which was valued at US$217.5 billion (FAO 2012). Developing countries account for over 60% of
global fish catch (FAO 2009). Whilst global marine capture fisheries production has stabilised at about 90
million tonnes, global aquaculture production has continued to expand at an average annual rate of 8.8%
between 1980 and 2010 (FAO 2012). In 2010 aquaculture production was 60 million tonnes, with an estimated
value of US$119 billion. This production is recognised to be of particular importance to developing countries, as
a potential driver of local and national economic development and for the critical role that fish can play in the
food and nutrition security of people, including the poorest4
Fish and fishery products are the most traded food commodities in the world (FAO 2012). In value terms, they
account for 10% of total agricultural exports and 1% of world merchandise trade. World trade in these
products is valued at US$102 billion dollars with world imports of fish and fish products setting a new record in
2010 at US$111.8 billion. The value of the global fish trade exceeds the value of international trade in all other
animal proteins combined.
Despite the important contributions that fisheries can make, global debates and discussions on fisheries issues
and fisheries policies appear dominated by concerns over environmental sustainability, overfishing and
overcapacity. These debates tend to be characterized by crisis narrative (e.g. Worm et al. 2006) within which
the potential of fisheries is limited and management of fisheries can, at best, only hope to minimize the impacts
of development within fisheries and that impacts upon fisheries. Capture fisheries become a subject for
conservation while aquaculture assumes greater importance as a means to replace lost capture fisheries
production. . Developing countries play a major role in the global trade of fish and fish products; 50% of all
fishery exports in value terms and more than 60% in quantity terms are supplied by developing countries
(World Bank 2011). The context in which this production takes place is one in which an estimated 1.4 billion
people are in poverty (2008 figure), 868 million people are estimated to be chronically hungry and an
estimated one third of children in the developing world under five years of age are stunted (Conway 2012). At
the same time, demand for fish products are likely to rise as a result of rising populations that are expected to
reach 9.3 billion by 2050. Furthermore, developing countries now display a positive trade balance due to their
increasing involvement in global fisheries trade. It is estimated that fish production generally contributes 0.5 –
2.5 % of GDP globally but detailed analysis of countries such as Mauritania and Vietnam show contributions of
10% or more (Allison 2011).
Recent work on fisheries in developing countries has sought to challenge this view of fisheries based on
evidence of huge productivity and of the importance of fisheries and aquaculture across scales. This work has
sought to emphasise a capture fisheries and aquaculture systems as locally complex, diverse and dynamic,
central to livelihoods and providing food, income and employment as well as a range of social and cultural
values and benefits. The benefits become particularly important when placed in the context of current food
production challenges, social change and growing climate change uncertainties. The report is intended to
assess the available evidence to identify where fish, and the aquaculture and fisheries systems that provide this
fish, might contribute to development objectives and drive development.
Activity/Performance Task
Task: Write a Concept Essay on possible sustainable/green agri-fishery project/activity applicable in

the school setting that shall uphold economic and societal development
Direction:
1. After comprehending the various topics in the Chapter, think on the connection or link of the basic
education sector and the agri-fishery sector.
2. Organize and write your thoughts considering your future job as “molder of young minds” to uphold
sustainable economic and societal development.
3. Submit your output in any means possible/feasible.
Activity/Performance Rubric
Criteria Rating Scale Remarks

1 2 3 4
(40%) Comprehensiveness in terms of scope of the
output
(35%) Logic/organization of thoughts/ideas
(25%) Feasibility/viability of thoughts/ideas
Weighted Mean Rating
Learning Check
Answer the following vividly and substantially.

1. Enumerate and explain at least three (3) important and critical/significant role of agriculture and at least
three (3) important and critical/significant role of fishery in societal and economic development.
2. Identify and elaborate 5 ways/strategies on how can agriculture and 5 ways/strategies on how can
fishery efforts be attuned to sustainable development.
Self-Reflection
From the Chapter, I learned ….
To further my learning, I will …..

5 TLEd205 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 TLEd205 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 TLEd205 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TLEd 205 - Agri-Fishery Arts Part I- Introduction to Agriculture and Fishery Arts

Duration: 7.5 hrs

At the end of the module, students must have:

Lesson 1. THE AGRICULTURE AND FISHERY SECTORS SITUATIONER

At the end of the lesson, the students must have:

1. Enumerated the roles of agriculture in the economy;

THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Role of Agriculture in the Economy

The Challenges of Globalization and Trade Liberalization

THE PRESENT SITUATION OF AGRICULTURE

Determining factors and constraints

Land and water resource potential and constraints

Potential for growth in agricultural productivity and its importance

(iv) Forestry and agroforestry

Environmental and natural resource sustainability

Agricultural and rural development institutions, infrastructure and support services

Determining factors and constraints

Interlinkages: Agricultural Growth, Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation

Nature of the linkages

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PREDICTIVE MODEL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Correlation of the Response and Regressor Variables

Linear Regression Analyses and Models of Agricultural Production

Lesson 2. THE ROLE OF FISHERY TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT

At the end of the lesson, the students must have:

1. Discussed the importance of fisheries and aquaculture to sustainable development; and

THE IMPORTANCE OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE TO DEVELOPMENT

EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION AND TRADE

Production and consumption

Fisheries in development policy

Development aspects of health and nutrition

Fish and the Millennium Development Goals

RECENT TRENDS IN AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES

Task: Write a Concept Essay on possible sustainable/green agri-fishery project/activity applicable in

Criteria Rating Scale Remarks

Answer the following vividly and substantially.

From the Chapter, I learned ….

To further my learning, I will …..

You might also like