Are Improved Nutritional Outcomes and a Robust Agricultural Sector Mutually Exclusive? Case Study Findings from the Developing World

In many areas of the world, positive nutritional outcomes are often correlated with high levels of agricultural employment. Farmers who rely on the agricultural sector for income also tend to develop an inherent understanding of the nutritional value of crops and respond accordingly in their diets. Unfortunately, this relationship does not always hold true. In both South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, a large number of citizens is employed in the agricultural sector. In sub-Saharan Africa, this number ranges from 47 to 58 percent; in South Asia, the agricultural sector employs between 68 and 75 percent of the population. Yet, these two regions also experience some of the highest levels of undernutrition in the developing world. Undernutrition can significantly increase vulnerability to common infections in early childhood development: In South Asia, an average of 39 percent of children under age five have stunted growth, and, in sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 42 percent of children suffer from the condition.

Recent research, published in Food Security, by Stuart Gillespie, Mara van den Bold, Judith Hodge, and Anna Herforth of the International Food Policy Research Institute has helped stakeholders become more aware of the complex relationship between agricultural production and health priorities in these two regions, as well as ways to move forward in policymaking.

Gillespie, et al. examine enabling environments for nutritionally-motivated agricultural policies in six countries across the two regions: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. Under the auspices of the Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA) and Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in East Africa (LANEA) research initiatives, the researchers conducted between 12 and 22 comprehensive stakeholder interviews for each country, borrowing from the methodology of the highly influential Lancet Maternal and Child Nutrition Series of 2013. Questions attempted to tease out the perceived connections between agricultural production and the nutritional health of citizens by focusing on three domains for effecting change: evidence, framing, and narratives; politics and governance; and capacity and resources. Interviewees represented the private sector, media, civil society, government, and multilateral donor organizations and had a vested interest in agriculture, nutritional health, or both.

Perhaps most telling from the results was the vast array of indicators associated with ‘improved nutrition.’ While some interviewees posited that child growth or micronutrient status should be the primary targets of good nutrition, others perceived food access and a strong production sector as the top priorities. Across all countries, the researchers observed the perception that, since a strong agricultural sector is a food and income generator, it “is not only relevant for nutrition, but potentially sufficient for good nutrition.”

In interviews where agriculture was deemed to not yet be nutrition-sensitive, suggestions and the urgency levels toward change were diverse. In the East African countries, emphasis was placed on agricultural diversification, as well as a shift away from promoting cash-generating crops (as these are not necessarily foods with high nutritional value). A Ugandan representative from the Office of the Prime Minister said, “[It is only] what is left after the market that is available for household food consumption. Nutrition sensitivity could be improved by promoting production of nutritious foods over and above the cash generating foods.”

In Pakistan, where a strong production sector is a priority, interviews revealed the tendency to conflate the idea of staple food (cash crop) sufficiency with food security. A representative from a provincial planning and development department is noted to have said: “Our focus is on […] self-sufficiency. We might get into enhancing nutritional value once we have addressed these issues. [Once] food security [is] ensured [and] we have an exportable surplus, then this [nutrition] might be the priority.” As the globally accepted definition of food security is access to nutritious diets, rather than grain self sufficiency, this type of comment speaks to the obvious differences in interpretation that can make policymaking and progress checks difficult.

Questions related to capacity and financing highlight challenges moving forward. In India and Pakistan, interviewees were split on whether the agri-food sector had sufficient finances to improve nutrition—most felt that the way in which resources were being spent was the primary problem. Belief in the capacity of research organizations to acquire these finances was also limited: in Bangladesh, the concept of a “brain drain” was mentioned, with leading organizations like the National Agricultural Research System hiring under qualified personnel. Universally, however, a pervasive data disconnect has been identified, where research surveys including only nutritional indicators or agricultural indicators are commonly conducted—making it difficult to find any common ground between the two sectors’ goals. Although urgent action is needed on several fronts, data accountability measures for policymakers in these and other developing world regions will need to avoid framing each sector’s goals as mutually exclusive.

Article Source: Gillespie, Stuart, Mara van den Bold, Judith Hodge, and Anna Herforth. “Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia and East Africa: Examining the Enabling Environment through Stakeholder Perceptions,” Food Security, June 2015, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 463-477.

Featured Photo: cc/(CIFOR)