Conclusions

This paper has provided estimates of the costs of OA programs, and set them in the context of the costs of attaining the MDGs. Data on the global costs of meeting the MDGs were converted into costs per head of poverty alleviation, per child educated, per child whose death is avoided, etc. This was done to provide cost estimates that could be compared with the costs of the OA programs in the four case studies of Wanzai, PRC; Wuyuan, PRC; Kandy, Sri Lanka; and Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand. A detailed analysis of the programs resulted in cost estimates per farmer per annum. These showed considerable variation across the case studies, suggesting that there is no clear structure to the costs of adopting OA. It also revealed that costs do depend on the efficiency with which the OA adoption programs are run. The lowest-cost programs were more than ten times less expensive than the highest-cost ones.

A further analysis of the gains resulting from adoption of OA revealed that the costs per person taken out of poverty was much lower than the World Bank's estimates, based on income growth in general or, based on the detailed costs of meeting some of the more quantifiable MDGs (education, health, and environment). The World Bank estimates that the cost of achieving the MDG goal of halving the percentage of households in poverty totals around US$554 to US$880 per head. Our study, using a different estimation method, found that the cost of moving a household out of poverty through engaging farmers in organic agriculture could be only US$32 to US$38 per head. Although the estimates are not directly comparable, the results do suggests that there is a role for targeted programs such as OA in providing a cost-effective solution to meeting the poverty alleviation MDG (MDG 1). As for the other MDGs, this study shows that OA makes some contribution to them, although it is not possible to quantify the exact magnitude. While one can draw the conclusion that OA programs can contribute cost-effectively to poverty reduction in the countries studied, there are still some open questions that need to be addressed. One of the most important is whether the costs of OA conversion borne by farmers effectively impede OA adoption. If so, what measures need to be taken to make the change more affordable? Many developing countries in Eastern Europe have programs to subsidize farmers during the conversion period. Such systems could be investigated to draw lessons for developing countries in other regions of the world.

This study also points out the high certification costs in all but the case of Thailand where the costs have declined over time. This suggests that public intervention to lower certification cost could be an effective strategy to lower the barrier to entry for the majority of farmers who wish to convert to organic agriculture. Capacity building of certification and accreditation bodies as well as promoting participatory group involvement in training activities by farmers are among the activities to be supported.

Given the fact that private sector firms that engage farmers to produce OA are effectively providing public services, i.e., reducing poverty while providing environmental services, scaling up such private sector participation by providing public supports such as risk guarantee programs should be considered.

For public support of organic agriculture to increase in a major way, further research is required. There is a need to examine the links between the income impacts of OA and the other non-income impacts. For example, do increases in income provide a pathway to higher expenditures on health and education, and better provision of improved water supply and sanitation? We know that these goals are directly influenced by OA practices (e.g., OA benefits health by reducing exposure to pesticides and promotes re-use of agricultural waste which can improve sanitation). But the relative importance of these two pathways, and how they interact with each other has yet to be established.

Download this Paper [ PDF 195.5KB| 25 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [1] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Prof. J. George
   (posted 19 February 2010 / 07:17:28 PM)
   
   The authors needs to be complimented for this study that is first of its kind particularly in so much as relating it to MDG. It is unfortunate that the UNESCAP-ADB-UNDP trio did not take cognisance of it while reviewing MDGs recession during the recent global financial crisis. The study is timely as it indicates the way out for rationalizing inclusive growth strategy in a region that is characterised by not only a larger proportion but also growing numbers of hungry and poor people in the world.
   Secondly, the paper completely compliments the UNEP-UNCTAD's path breaking longitudinal study in African and the Central American continents as well as trade and environment review of 2006 and and 2009.
   Thirdly, The study is also contemporary as it is a one shot answer to the the vexing question of climate change related mitigation and adaptation strategies.
   
   Fourthly, the study does reinforce that food security as enshrined in MDGs 1C is fully attainable at a cost effective manner. ADB need to take conscious decisions to explicitly reinforce it as its thrust area given that the strategy 2020 sounds hallo in the absence of a credible alternative. The paper provides a good indication to that pathway. The strategic economic management initiative as defined necessarily must be based on inclusiveness and organic agriculture restores that power in the hands of the producers for a number of opportunities for autonomous income enhancement amongst the poorer segments of the population, among other associated reform measures.