Petits producteurs : échec aux ODD
A grim picture is painted by the FAO's recent report on the six Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to food and agriculture, the implementation of which it monitors: "Zero Hunger" (SDG 2), "Gender Equality" (SDG 5), "Clean Water and Sanitation" (SDG 6), "Responsible Consumption and Production" (SDG 12), "Life Below Water" (SDG 14) and "Life on Land" (SDG 15).[1]. Due to insufficient progress, the world is not on a trajectory that would allow it to achieve these objectives by 2030. This is particularly true for “target 2.3” of SDG 2, which provides for “double agricultural productivity and the incomes of small food producers” in order to improve the planet's food security and ensure more inclusive development.
Monitoring of this target is based on two indicators: on the one hand, a productivity indicator (2.3.1), providing information on “the volume of production per unit of work, depending on the size of the agricultural, pastoral or forestry operation” ; on the other hand, an income indicator (2.3.2), relating to “Average income of small-scale food producers, by gender and indigenous status”Beyond the worrying situation revealed by these indicators, which are systematically unfavourable to small producers, the question of their interpretation and their relevance for the formulation of public policies arises.
What is a small producer?
To assess whether target 2.3 has been met, the FAO had to translate into operational terms the concept of "small-scale food producers," for which there was no international definition – each country having its own. This has been done since September 2018, when the United Nations endorsed the method proposed by the FAO.[2]. According to this, a small producer is a farmer who meets three criteria: (i) the surface area of his farm is in the lower bracket of farms which accounts for 40,% of the agricultural surface area of the country; (ii) the number of livestock he owns, expressed in equivalent animal units per farm, is in the lower bracket of farms which accounts for 40,% of the livestock in the country; (iii) the value of his “agricultural” production (including agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry) is in the lower bracket of farms which accounts for 40,% of the total value of the agricultural production of the country. In addition, producers meeting these three criteria must achieve an annual agricultural production value of less than 34,387 dollars.[3]Otherwise, they are excluded from the sample.
This definition, based on relative criteria, has the great advantage of allowing meaningful international comparison. A definition in absolute terms (based, for example, as is often the case, on a minimum area of 2 hectares) would make this comparison much more delicate, because a given area threshold does not have the same economic significance in different countries. Moreover, the use of absolute criteria of area or number of animals would distort the assessment of the evolution of the economic performance of small producers, because it would introduce, according to the FAO, an anti-selection bias: in many countries, the class grouping farmers operating, for example, less than 2 hectares generally tends to shrink, due to the expansion of farms; it thus risks gradually being limited to farmers systematically obtaining the lowest incomes.
FAO statisticians have therefore brilliantly risen to the challenge set before them. The problem is that there is insufficient data to apply this definition to all countries, or even just to the majority of them.
Majority in number
Using various statistical sources, FAO has calculated and published the number of small-scale food producers, defined as above, for 38 countries. The structural and economic characteristics of this sample vary greatly: in Côte d'Ivoire and Nicaragua, a small-scale producer farms on average more than 10 hectares, compared to less than 1 hectare in Rwanda and Vietnam; the annual value of their production is less than $1,000 in Malawi and more than $10,000 in Iraq.
The main finding, however, is the preponderance of the number of small producers, which justifies their special treatment in the SDGs. In the majority of the countries studied, classified as low- or middle-income, they represent 50 to 70% of farmers. In France and Germany, on the other hand, their share falls to 2%.
Lower income
Indicator 2.3.1 on the productivity of small producers could only be established for 11 countries, out of the 38 mentioned above, due to the lack of comparable information on the quantity of agricultural labor. And it only concerns crop production, due to the lack of data on animal production. The results show that the value of agricultural production per working day, in PPP dollars, is on average significantly lower for small producers than for other farmers. The gap between these two categories varies from -8 % in Mali to -64 % in Nigeria.
Indicator 2.3.2 on small-scale producers' income has been published for 37 countries. It corresponds to the difference between, on the one hand, the value of production from agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry (whether this production is self-consumed or sold) and, on the other hand, the amount of operating costs incurred by producers.[4]Across the entire sample studied, small producers generate an annual income, in PPP dollars, 3.5 times lower, on average, than that of other farmers. Here again, the diversity of situations is extreme, both in terms of the average income level of small producers (which ranges from 185 dollars in Rwanda to 2,810 dollars in Vietnam) and in terms of their income gap compared to larger producers.
Finally, it should be noted that indicators 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 are often based on old data, which makes it difficult to assess their recent trends. For example, income information dates back to 2016 for Nigeria, but goes back to 2010 or earlier for around ten countries.
Implications for public policy
Based on the few historical statistics available, it is clear that the goal of doubling the productivity and income of small producers by 2030 will be difficult to achieve. This was the conclusion of a study published by the FAO in 2016.[5]But we must also question the implications of these indicators for public policies and, more generally, the conception of development that they underpin.
Measuring changes in the economic performance of small-scale producers is, of course, crucial. But it is no less important to compare them with those of larger producers. Would the doubling of small-scale farmers' incomes be considered a success for the 2030 Agenda (the UN process that created the SDGs in 2015) if, at the same time, other producers tripled their incomes? In other words, it is essential to also examine changes in income inequality in the agricultural sector. Fortunately, FAO indicators allow for this monitoring, as they are calculated for different categories of producers.
Another ambiguity lies in the fact that the small-scale producer income indicator only covers resources derived from agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, and forestry. It does not provide information on the overall income of farm households, including income derived from off-farm activities by the farm manager or other family members. However, surveys show that this additional income is often essential to household survival. It allows them to maintain farming activity, even if their production is not very "competitive" due, for example, to low land productivity.[6].
If this factor is omitted, it may be tempting to conclude that increasing yields on small farms is the major key or even the only determinant of more inclusive economic growth, when this depends just as much on the creation of non-farm jobs in rural areas. Indeed, in sub-Saharan Africa, the expected gains from an intensification of agricultural production are, in most cases, insufficient to lift households out of poverty.[7]This does not call into question the need to increase crop and livestock yields to accelerate the structural transformation of African economies. But, from a social and territorial perspective in particular, the target of doubling the productivity and income of small producers cannot, on its own, sum up the objective of more sustainable development of the countryside.
[1] “Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related Sustainable Development Goal indicators in 2020. Report on indicators under the custodianship of FAO,” Food and Agriculture Organization, 2020. The six goals tracked by FAO are part of the 17 SDGs set by the United Nations in 2015.
[2] The methodology used to define small-scale food producers is described in detail in the document “Methodology for computing and monitoring the Sustainable Development Goal indicators 2.3.1 and 2.3.2”, FAO Statistics Working Paper Series/18-14, 2019.
[3] The value of agricultural production is expressed in constant 2011 dollars using purchasing power parity (PPP). Conversely, countries may set minimum thresholds for agricultural area or number of animals per holding to exclude "hobby farms" and other "non-professional" producers.
[4] Operating costs mainly include variable costs (seeds, fertilizers, etc.), salaries, and rents. Depreciation, taxes, and social security contributions on salaries are not included.
[5] Jean-Christophe Debar, “Doubling the income of small farmers, a realistic objective?”, February 21, 2017. FARM Foundation.
[6] This finding is not unique to developing countries. In the United States, for example, 59% of farm households had negative farm income in 2018 and relied primarily on income from off-farm activities (ERS/USDA, “America's Diverse Family Farms,” EIB No. 214, December 2019).
[7] Jean-Christophe Debar, “Covid-19 questions our development strategies”, April 28, 2020, FARM Foundation.
