However, domestic food demands continue to increase and diversify, creating important employment opportunities in the off-farm AFS. These changes mean that both traditional and new digital technologies can be leveraged to induce a productive exit out of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa while maintaining a competitive agricultural workforce on and off the farm in the chains elsewhere. Three key policy implications emerge. First, productivity-enhancing investment in agriculture must accelerate in the lower-income countries and proceed at least in tandem with the movement of workers off the farm elsewhere. Populations will continue to grow despite slowing birthrates, and food production will have to expand to keep pace. The movement of workers off the farm to meet the demand for other goods requires producing more food with fewer workers, once underemployed labor has been activated. Historically in today’s high-income countries, agricultural extension and public investments in infrastructure, from irrigation to information, marketing institutions, and roads, played a critical supporting role in facilitating the labor exit out of agriculture. They enabled the remaining farmers to earn a living commensurate with non-farm sectors, as competition for workers with the non-farm sectors and downstream food processors intensified. This agenda holds as much today as then. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the agricultural share of public spending continues to be well below that in East Asia . Myriad input, factor, and output market constraints hold agricultural labor productivity back, and integrated solutions that simultaneously overcome a number of these constraints are needed. Inclusive value chain development ,dutch bucket hydroponic which links farmers with buyers in contracting arrangements, offering knowledge, access to credit and inputs , and higher prices in exchange for a consistent volume of high-quality products , provides a market-based solution to do so, though smallholders’ lack of legal protections can be an obstacle .
Given the challenge to develop self-enforcing incentive compliant contracts, iVCD typically does not work well for raising staple crop productivity. Yet, in low income countries, this is where the need and scope for raising labor productivity and poverty reduction is highest. For raising labor productivity in staple crops, more and better public investment in public goods is needed . Second, the scope for iVCD to raise smallholder incomes and benefit the poor and women is greater for non-staples. iVCD also creates jobs off the farm, in the chains and beyond . Success factors of iVCD include careful diagnosis of the competitiveness and sustainability of the product value chain chosen, starting small, involving financial institutions, monitoring producer-buyer relationships, and sustaining capacity building. This is in addition to creating an economic environment that is conducive to investment generally. Developing systems to monitor and enforce food quality standards in the AFS is equally critical. There is clearly a role for agricultural ministries, as well as for the private sector, to ensure that the development and use of labor-saving technologies keeps pace with the movement of workers off-farm. Many questions remain, however, especially on the best entry points for support: through farmer organizations/cooperatives, large anchor firms and/or SMEs, or externally initiated stakeholder platforms. More experiments are needed. In the meantime, appropriate measures will be needed to help SMEs in the transformative food chains see through the decline in liquidity caused by COVID-19 and avoid undue concentration of activity in the long run. Labor-market regulations and other social protections can also be useful in protecting vulnerable populations from exploitation as they transition into non-farm work . Third, investment in people is critical to raise agricultural labor productivity and to make sure that those leaving can access the new jobs in the AFS, as well as other non-farm sectors, and meet the rising economic aspirations of rural youth.
Continued investment in quality rural education, which continues to largely underperform in developing countries, is needed . Increasing educational attainment in rural areas facilitates technology adoption, as well as occupational mobility, and reduces income inequality. This is also important for young women facing social norms that make it difficult to escape from traditional gender roles. Nontraditional skill-building programs and effective agricultural extension systems will be equally needed to build up human capital in regions where traditional education has proven ineffective. The extension system is particularly weak in Sub-Saharan Africa and has been largely neglected for the past couple of decades by governments and donors alike. The 2010s have witnessed a surge in studies on social network or farmer-to-farmer technology extension, which proves more promising especially in combination with public extension than traditional public-sector extension approaches. But several issues remain such as the choice and compensation of appropriate lead farmers . Policy implications are different, but just as immediate, in high income countries. Rich-country farmers will be required to produce more and higher-quality fresh and processed foods for a growing, and increasingly affluent, domestic and global population, and they will be required to do so under increasingly stringent environmental and animal welfare standards. However, they will have to do this with fewer workers. The transition of domestic workers out of farm work largely has run its course in rich countries. The option of importing foreign workers is gradually closing, due to a declining farm labor supply in farm labor exporting countries and a less supportive political environment for immigration, particularly of low-skilled workers, in high-income countries. Three key policy implications emerge for high-income countries in this era of growing farm labor scarcity: First, farmers in high income countries will increasingly need to look beyond immigration policy as an answer to farm labor scarcity —especially in the medium and long run.
Guest worker programs can expand as a short-run response to farm labor scarcity. However, as the structural transformation progresses in farm labor-exporting countries and political resistance to importing low-skilled farm workers intensifies, the immigration solution to the farm labor problem becomes less of an option. This does not mean that immigration will not continue to play a central role in farm labor markets throughout the developed world for some time. But farmers will need to take steps to retain an aging, mostly immigrant, workforce while pursuing available options to contract new workers from abroad. International farm labor migration could continue to be a much-needed channel for sharing prosperity across nations and reducing poverty in the world’s poorest countries. For this, however, a counternarrative needs to take hold rapidly. If not, its days may be numbered prematurely, especially now that the COVID-19 pandemic so clearly exposed the agri-food sector’s dependence on immigrant labor and the logistical challenges this may entail, eroding support for reliance on immigrant agricultural labor even further. Second, increasingly sophisticated technological change is going to be a fundamental feature of the food supply chain,dutch buckets system from farming to food processing. Productivity-enhancing investments likely will include the use of highly-advanced robotic systems that will dramatically reduce the need for workers . Scouring the landscape in today’s high-income countries, we find automation success stories like the ones described earlier in this paper, as well as major challenges. There is a danger that automation will not happen quickly enough to enable farmers to maintain their competitiveness in a high wage, labor-scarce, world.However, more affluent consumers will demand fresh, locally-grown fruits and vegetables, as well as specific qualities like organics, environmentally friendly production practices, fair trade, and possibly better labor practices, all of which tend to increase labor demands compared to field crops where automation is more advanced. Prices of these fresh fruits and vegetables will rise, causing farmers to think twice about abandoning production as wages rise while intensifying pressure on public and private researchers and policy makers to accelerate the development of labor-saving technologies and deploy the necessary digital infrastructure to run it, including in remote rural areas.
Policymakers will need to keep an eye out for undue concentration of power in the supply of these new technologies and devise adequate policies to ensure competition . Third, a technologically advanced AFS requires a technology-savvy workforce, with more engineers and people capable of working with increasingly complex technologies. As agricultural and food processing technologies become more IT intensive, so do human capital demands all along the AFS. To some extent, developments in IT can help respond to human capital shortages; viz. bar codes in supermarkets and hamburger buttons at fast-food restaurants. Nevertheless, the numbers of workers with little education who pick themselves a living wage will diminish. As new technologies become available for relatively easy-to mechanize crops and routine tasks, the farm workforce will move out of those crops and tasks into ones that have not yet been mechanized and are non-routine . A major policy challenge is to prepare the future farm workforce for technological change while also ensuring that employment opportunities expand as new technologies release workers from crop production. There is no magic bullet to guarantee that automation, human capital formation, and new job creation move apace. It is undeniable that the future holds far-reaching changes in mechanization and automation in developing and developed countries alike. Without it, agriculture and the AFS generally will not be able to keep up with rising food demands and a declining farm labor supply. Inevitably, many farms and farm workers will have difficulty adjusting. Some farms and farmers, particularly larger, wealthier and better educated ones, are in a far better position to experiment with and adopt new labor-saving technologies, including advanced robotics. And some farmers and farm workers, particularly older ones, will have a difficult time shifting to new commodities and tasks; the more technology-savvy farm workforce of the future is likely to be younger and better educated than current workers. Decoupling social insurance from employment, as proposed in Packard et al. , could be a worthwhile social insurance model to mitigate adverse consequences of this transition and avoid the introduction of ineffective agricultural and food policies. The need for greater food system resilience, highlighted by the COVID-19 experience, would also be better served by food trade diversification instead of a reversal to protectionism and food self-sufficiency. Yet, without successful social insurance schemes to help mitigate the adjustment costs and rapid ramp up in agricultural education and extension, the ongoing evolution in the agricultural labor force is bound to raise inequality as well as anti-trade sentiment, including in agri-food. Agricultural production has grown to meet the demands of an increasingly large and wealthy human population. The development of high-yield crop varieties combined with the widespread use of irrigation, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and land use changes that marked the “Green Revolution” have enabled an enormous increase in crop production per area . As a result of these technologies, cereal production has doubled . This increased production is credited with reducing poverty and improving nutrition intake for millions of people worldwide . However, this increase in production also has costs. There are concerns that the loss of natural enemies and biodiversity caused by the increased size and connectivity of agricultural land, the trend toward monocultures, and the conversion of natural habitat—termed “landscape simplification”—makes farms more susceptible to pest outbreaks . With increased risk of pest outbreaks comes enhanced pesticide use. Although other aspects of intensive farming also have negative externalities, such as synthetic fertilizers and eutrophication, pesticides have received some of the most widespread scrutiny and their reduction has become a priority for policy makers, as evidenced by integrated pest management . The emphasis on pesticide use stems from serious human health concerns related to pesticide exposure in farm workers , pesticide residues in food and water sources , and bio-accumulation of pesticides in higher trophic levels . Despite popular ecological thinking that the connection between landscape simplification and pesticide use is clear, both theoretical and empirical studies have found ambiguous results. Agroecological theory holds that landscapes composed of a high proportion of cropland are more susceptible to pest outbreaks because of their habitat homogeneity and reduced natural enemy populations. Therefore, more simplified landscapes would experience more pest problems and consequently use more pesticides. Conversely, economic theory of pesticide use suggests that the application of pesticides by a neighboring farm may have positive externalities for surrounding farms as a result of pesticide drift or pest suppression .