Value chain development and rural poverty reduction: Knowledge gaps and a potential role for ICRAF
•Download as PPT, PDF•
3 likes•1,587 views
Value chain development and rural poverty reduction: Knowledge gaps and a potential role for ICRAF
![Content ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Value chain development and rural poverty reduction: Knowledge gaps and a potential role for ICRAF
Similar to Value chain development and rural poverty reduction: Knowledge gaps and a potential role for ICRAF (20)
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Value chain development and rural poverty reduction: Knowledge gaps and a potential role for ICRAF
- 1. Value chain development and rural poverty reduction Knowledge gaps and a potential role for ICRAF Staff Seminar Series ICRAF HQ, Nairobi, Kenya February 28, 2012 Jason Donovan, Ph.D. ICRAF – Latin America
- 8. Asset-based approach for assessing VCD Regional and local markets Product 1 Product 2 International market Product 3 Context political – legal – institutional – market – cultural Remittances Off farm work Market oriented agriculture Subsistance agriculture Household assets + To what extent do diversified rural livelihoods allow for the building of assets in response to VCD?
- 9. Enterprise level interventions Project 2 Household level interventions State agency Cooperative Provider of financial services Buyer 1 Project 1 NGO Community 1 Community 2 Community 3
- 10. Asset-based VC assessment Farming households SMEs (Coops, Associations) Buyers / processors Retailers Consumers Changes: Asset endowments of farming households Changes: Asset endowments of upstream enterprises
- 11. Impact pathway - households
- 12. Impact pathway - small businesses
- 13. Case studies – Phase 1 Partner Chain Country Bioversity International Organic banana Bolivia CRS Plantain El Salvador CATIE & LWR Certified coffee Nicaragua CATIE & Technoserve Taro root Nicaragua University of Plymouth & Swisscontact Dairy Sri Lanka MEDA Handicraft Pakistán M. Harper & R. Roy Frozen shrimp India EDA Honey India LWR Basic grains Burkina Faso KIT & BioRe Organic cotton Tanzania KIT & FAIDA-MaLi Allan Blackia nut Tanzania
- 14. Case studies – Phase 2 Partner Chain Country AIACA Handicrafts India CEDO Bean seeds Uganda Bioversity International Platain Dominican Republic R. Roy & M. Harper Chicken India Aimee Russillo & Winrock-Wallace Center Organic produce USA Intercooperation Beans Ecuador Technoserve Coffee Colombia Swisscontact Dairy Bolivia Technoserve Fresh horticulture Colombia Farm Concern International, KARI African vegetables Kenia MEDA Fresh horticulture Afghanistan
Editor's Notes
- In particular, understanding why poor people stay poor for long periods of time requires a close look at the underlying structural dimensions that may undermine people’s attempts to escape poverty (Carter and May 2001, Adato, Carter and May 2004, Bevan 2004, du Toit 2005). This is a key point. In many cases, particularly in the vulnerable insecure low-skill labour market, brief spells of improved income should not be seen as changing people’s structural poverty status. Though an increase of a few hundred Rand probably does improve welfare, people can hardly be said to have escaped poverty if the ways in which they are positioned in society by their access to resources and their insertion into social relations have not been changed. Here, it is insightful to comment on the concept of vulnerability. This term, which is often used rather fast and loose in the literature, needs to be used with some care. Vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘ vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment.
- In particular, understanding why poor people stay poor for long periods of time requires a close look at the underlying structural dimensions that may undermine people’s attempts to escape poverty (Carter and May 2001, Adato, Carter and May 2004, Bevan 2004, du Toit 2005). This is a key point. In many cases, particularly in the vulnerable insecure low-skill labour market, brief spells of improved income should not be seen as changing people’s structural poverty status. Though an increase of a few hundred Rand probably does improve welfare, people can hardly be said to have escaped poverty if the ways in which they are positioned in society by their access to resources and their insertion into social relations have not been changed. Here, it is insightful to comment on the concept of vulnerability. This term, which is often used rather fast and loose in the literature, needs to be used with some care. Vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘ vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment.
- In particular, understanding why poor people stay poor for long periods of time requires a close look at the underlying structural dimensions that may undermine people’s attempts to escape poverty (Carter and May 2001, Adato, Carter and May 2004, Bevan 2004, du Toit 2005). This is a key point. In many cases, particularly in the vulnerable insecure low-skill labour market, brief spells of improved income should not be seen as changing people’s structural poverty status. Though an increase of a few hundred Rand probably does improve welfare, people can hardly be said to have escaped poverty if the ways in which they are positioned in society by their access to resources and their insertion into social relations have not been changed. Here, it is insightful to comment on the concept of vulnerability. This term, which is often used rather fast and loose in the literature, needs to be used with some care. Vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘ vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment.
- In particular, understanding why poor people stay poor for long periods of time requires a close look at the underlying structural dimensions that may undermine people’s attempts to escape poverty (Carter and May 2001, Adato, Carter and May 2004, Bevan 2004, du Toit 2005). This is a key point. In many cases, particularly in the vulnerable insecure low-skill labour market, brief spells of improved income should not be seen as changing people’s structural poverty status. Though an increase of a few hundred Rand probably does improve welfare, people can hardly be said to have escaped poverty if the ways in which they are positioned in society by their access to resources and their insertion into social relations have not been changed. Here, it is insightful to comment on the concept of vulnerability. This term, which is often used rather fast and loose in the literature, needs to be used with some care. Vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘ vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment.
- In particular, understanding why poor people stay poor for long periods of time requires a close look at the underlying structural dimensions that may undermine people’s attempts to escape poverty (Carter and May 2001, Adato, Carter and May 2004, Bevan 2004, du Toit 2005). This is a key point. In many cases, particularly in the vulnerable insecure low-skill labour market, brief spells of improved income should not be seen as changing people’s structural poverty status. Though an increase of a few hundred Rand probably does improve welfare, people can hardly be said to have escaped poverty if the ways in which they are positioned in society by their access to resources and their insertion into social relations have not been changed. Here, it is insightful to comment on the concept of vulnerability. This term, which is often used rather fast and loose in the literature, needs to be used with some care. Vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘ vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment.
- In particular, understanding why poor people stay poor for long periods of time requires a close look at the underlying structural dimensions that may undermine people’s attempts to escape poverty (Carter and May 2001, Adato, Carter and May 2004, Bevan 2004, du Toit 2005). This is a key point. In many cases, particularly in the vulnerable insecure low-skill labour market, brief spells of improved income should not be seen as changing people’s structural poverty status. Though an increase of a few hundred Rand probably does improve welfare, people can hardly be said to have escaped poverty if the ways in which they are positioned in society by their access to resources and their insertion into social relations have not been changed. Here, it is insightful to comment on the concept of vulnerability. This term, which is often used rather fast and loose in the literature, needs to be used with some care. Vulnerability cannot simply be understood, as econometric studies sometimes do (e.g. Bhorat et al 2001), in terms of poverty-sensitive segmentation of the labour market in order to identify who is ‘ vulnerable to poverty’. Such an approach is highly non-dynamic and misses the longitudinal and temporal aspects of vulnerability, reducing it simply to the likelihood of someone being in a particular income segment at a particular moment.