Explore publications.

Agriculture is the major source of livelihood and income for about 80% of the Zimbabwean population. However, in recent decades, climate change, political standoffs, hyperinflation, and an energy crisis have held the sector hostage. Policy and academic scholarship have mainly focused on reforming agricultural policies. Studies on the diagnostic potential of non-contributory social assistance in increasing resilience and recovery from shocks are limited. Focusing on south-eastern Zimbabwe, this article identifies climate change-related farming challenges. It explores how social assistance, cash transfers and material transfers, in particular, can generate the resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change. The article utilised mixed methods research data collected between June and December 2022. The study shows increased use of improved inputs, increased farm output and asset ownership, risk coping and non-farm investment, household income, food security, and production capabilities. The results provide a sufficient empirical rationale for promoting social assistance and smallholder agriculture interactions. It shows how social assistance interventions generate multiplier effects in smallholder farming. The government should normalise the increasing demand for smallholder farming products to promote agriculture through social protection.

Recently, many developing nations are disproportionately experiencing the impact of shocks and stressors compared to the rest of the world due to increasing inadequate capability and capacity to withstand the shocks. In particular, farmers and farming households are faced with diverse repeated and unanticipated shocks, which may be socio-economic, ecological and/or environmental in nature. All these shocks become unbearable and worsen in terms of food insecurity. The welfare costs associated with the shocks are significant, attracting humanitarian and development policy experts’ attention to developing suitable interventions to build a resilient food system and society. Consequently, this study analyzed the correlates of farmers’ resilience to food insecurity in South-West Nigeria. Drawing on the data collected from 472 smallholder farmers randomly sampled, descriptive statistics, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s food insecurity experience scale approach, composite score technique, principal component analysis (PCA) and Structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to analyze the data. The findings indicated that more than half (55.3%) of the respondents were inadequate in almost all the resilience indicators and components, had low resilience capacity, and were vulnerable to food shocks and food insecurity. In comparison, only 7.8% have a high resilience capacity to be a buffer against food shocks. 54% of the respondents fall into a high food insecurity category, while only 1.9% fall into a very-low food insecurity continuum. The SEM analysis also revealed that social safety net (p<0.01), climate extreme events (p<0.01), access to essential services (p<0.01), presence of enabling institutional environment (p<0.01), and technical level (p<0.05) made direct impacts on the farmers’ food insecurity status. Conversely, possession of assets (p<0.01), and social capital/neighborhood effect (p<0.1) had inverse impacts on the farmers’ food insecurity status. The study recommended transparently implementing a social protection program to assist the farmer in building buffers against shocks. There is also a greater need for sustained investments across the resilience pillars and indicators to build farmers’ resilience capacity to food insecurity and other shocks.

This study aims to: (1) analyze the risk of production, price, and income of technical irrigated rice fields and rainfed rice field in South Lampung regency, 2) to analyze farmer behavior against rice farming risk on the technical irrigated rice field and rainfed rice field. The research was conducted in August - September 2016 in Kecamatan Palas, rice production center in South Lampung. The sample of farmers consist of 23 technical irrigated rice field farmers, and 37 rainfed rice field farmers, taken proportionally by random sampling method .Data were analyzed quantitatively including Coefficient of variation analysis, Bernoulli Theory, and  Neuman Morgenstern The results show: (1) the risk of production, price, and income faced by rice farmers on technical irrigated rice field is lower than from rainfed; (2) most rice farmers behave neutrally to the risk, on technical irrigated rice fieldvalued78,26 percent and in rainfed rice field valued 81.08  percent. No farmers were found to be brave at risk either on technical irrigated rice fields or on the rain fed rice field.