Endnotes

¹The reduction will be permanent as long as the income increases are not reversed. Reversal is unlikely, but not impossible, especially in the current global credit crises.

²The additional cost per child educated is the present value cost of the education target divided by the increase in the annual number of children educated. One can also measure the increase in cost divided by the total number of children educated in the period 2000–2015. By that measure the additional cost is between US$2 and US$6. Likewise the additional cost per child reduction who survives beyond 5 years of age is the present value cost of the mortality target divided by the decline in the number of child deaths in 2015 compared to 2000. One can also measure the increase in cost divided by the reduction in the total number of deaths in the period 2000–2015. By that measure the additional cost is between US$9 and US$12. Note also that we do not have an estimate of the unit cost for maternal mortality or decline in other disease. This is because of a lack of either a both baseline or predicted 2015 values for maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases.

³For details, visit http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/global/en/dalys.pdf (accessed 27 October 2009).

⁴It can be argued that in fact these subsidies are not always necessary and that they are provided to attract farmers to the program. It would be less expensive to set up a revolving fund to purchase inputs and distribute them to farmers at the beginning of the planting season. The fund would be reimbursed when the farmers sold their produce. In this case the input subsidy would be the interest cost of the fund.

⁵It is worth nothing that the transition cost for farmers converting from chemical to organic farming is higher than those converting to Good Agricultural Practice farming, which is de facto largely organic.

⁶Large-scale in this case does not refer to mono-crop large-scale farming but village or countywide conversion of collective numbers of smallholder farmers.

⁷This approximation overestimates the number of very poor households, as almost certainly the underlying distribution will be closer to a log-normal. This cannot be estimated as we do not have data on the parameters of that distribution. Since the error in taking a rectangular distribution is to underestimate the numbers taken out of poverty, we can say that our figures were conservative estimates of the gains in poverty reduction.

⁸We should be particularly careful of the estimates for Thailand, where the gains in net income showed a very wide range. As noted in the Synthesis chapter of Setboonsarng and Markandya (2009), these are probably due to special conditions in the market in 2005, when conventional farmers were offered higher than market prices.

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.