Farming, food systems & farm well-being
- modelling & change
Donald C Cole, Professor, DLSPH
Associate Scientist, International Potato Center
University of Warwick, Food Security Workshop
2015 April 15-17
Outline
• Livelihood framework
• Observing and modelling – Andean farming systems
– Farming system impacts on nutrition and health
– Livelihoods and food access – path models
• Intervening
– Shifting multiple communities – mixed methods & path models
– Persistent inequalities – multi-level models
– Changes in attitudes and practices – mixed methods & most
significant change
• Shifting policy and governance
– Urban agriculture in Kampala
– Global reflections
• Grounding in Ontario
Observing - Context
EcoSalud I&II
• Substantial use of highly
hazardous pesticides in
highland Andean potato
production
• High exposure conditions for
applicators, brought into home
EcoSalud II & HortiSana
EcoSalud II
Agricultural production characteristics according
to intensity of potato cultivation by community
Characteristic
More intensive
(N = 57)
Intermediate
(N = 38)
Less intensive
(N = 38)
Main crops
Market vegetables:
peas, lettuce, carrots,
coriander, alfalfa,
potatoes
Barley, corn,
alfalfa, feed
grass, potatoes
Barley, beans,
feed grass, peas,
lentils, potatoes
Area cultivated (ha)
0.25 ± 0.18
0.80 ± 1.04
0.54 ± 0.48
Production cost
(US$/ha)
2,379 ± 984
1,273 ± 623
1,002 ± 414
Yield (qq/ ha)
335. ± 151
233 ± 129
171 ± 133
Gross income
(US$/ha)
3,203 ± 2142
2,161 ± 1,692
1,361 ± 1,251
Net income (US$/ha)
824 ± 2,360
888 ± 1,240
359 ± 1,073
% Age children with excessive or deficient
dietary intakes according to community intensity
of potato cultivation
Nutrient
More
intensive
Intermediate
Less
Intensive
P value
Protein
deficient
63
47
37
0.3
Riboflavin
25.9
5.0
17.5
0.03
Thiamin
24.1
5.0
19.5
0.04
HAZ
(mean, SD)
–1.1 ± 1.5
–1.3 ± 1.3
–1.9 ± 1.9
F = 4.06
p = .02
28 (70)
10 (25)
2 (5)
20 (49)
10 (24)
11 (27)
χ2 = 1.72
p = .0195
Undernutriti
on—no. (%)
Normal
38 (70)
Mild
12 (22)
Moderate to 4 (7)
severe
Assessing Food Access in 3 periurban regions (Leah et al 2012)
Food availability
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Se
pt
Oct
Nov
Potatoes
Pucara
Chupaca
Chupuro
Chongos Bajo
Ahuac
Corn
Vegetables
Available
Cobs
Dried
Variety throughout the year
Limited availability
Scarcity
Dec
Demographics*
(age & sex)
Community
Support and
Community
Involvement**
(community
Agricultural Knowledge and
Practices
(type of producer, IPM
knowledge, organic awareness)
support,
participation in
agricultural
associations & in
church)
Education
(low, middle,
high)
Satisfaction
with health
status
Size of total farmland and irrigated
land
-0.528(0.167);-0.387(0.163)
0.336(0.166);-0.394(0.189)
Household
Food
Security
(mahfp)
Housing Conditions
(housing type, space index)
0.511(0.170)
Intervening - Shifting away from
hazardous pesticides
Globally
Andean Metropolitan Regions
Change Evaluation
• In each community, 20 voluntary farm households
interviewed at baseline and 12 months after the
beginning of the interventions (6 months after
completing most interventions)
• Usually 2 individuals/household
• Follow up proportion >95%
*Orozco F et al 2007, 2011. Cole et al 2011
Pesticide related practices
Indicators
Canton
Riobamba
Range
(n=56)
0-10
(0=poor to
T1 Mean(SD)
10=good) T2 Mean(SD)
P value
Guamote
(n=40)
Quero
(n=161)
Guano
(n=99)
T1 Mean(SD) T1 Mean(SD)
T2 Mean(SD) T2 Mean(SD)
P value
P value
T1 Mean(SD)
T2 Mean(SD)
P value
Practices
during
mixing &
spraying
7.7 (1.5)
9.4 (0.9)
<0.001
7.1 (1.9)
9.5 (1.5)
<0.0001
7.3 (1.9)
8.8 (1.7)
<0.0001
9.2 (1.3)
9.6 (1.1)
0.005
Protective
3.2 (1.5)
Equip4.4 (1.7)
ment Use 0.0002
3.4 (1.6)
3.7 (1.8)
0.42
4.5 (1.8)
4.4 (1.7)
0.46
3.1 (2.3)
4.6 (1.9)
<0.0001
Paths predicting changes in household managers’ pesticide-related
practices [Significant standardized path coefficients]
Community interest
in learning 01 vs 3
-.43
Leadership 0
Leadership 1
Vs 2
-.19
-.20
-.55
Intensity
-.17
.28
.26
-.13
Disposal
Pesticides OK
.14
Training
<6 yrs education
Δ symptom
knowledge
Δ label
reading
.17
.28
Gloves for
washing
Δ = change, positive for symptom knowledge and label reading
All paths shown were p<0.05
GofF indices: Chi-Square p=0.44, CFI=TLI=0.99, RMSEA=0.007, WRMR=0.76
Pesticide use
Pesticide
use WHO
categories
(kg/crop
cycle)
Ib Highly
Hazardous
Canton
Riobamba
Guamote
Quero
Guano
T1 Mean(SD)
T2 Mean(SD)
P value
T1 Mean(SD)
T2 Mean(SD)
P value
T1 Mean(SD)
T2 Mean(SD)
P value
T1 Mean(SD)
T2 Mean(SD)
P value
0.4 (0.5)
0.1 (0.2)
<0.001
0.2 (0.4)
3.3 (19.7)§
0.33
2.8 (5.4)
0.6 (2.1)
<0.001
0.9 (2.8)
0.4 (0.7)
0.14
0.3 (0.6)
0.1 (0.3)
0.15
1.2 (4.0)
1.6 (18.8)§
0.77
0.9 (3.0)
0.2 (0.4)
0.02
II Moderately 1.2 (1.4)
Hazardous
0.4 (0.9)
0.0002
§ some outliers present
Paths predicting changes in farm Ib pesticide use (crop & household
managers) [Significant standardized path coefficients]
Community interest
in learning 01
vs 3
2
-.19
Δ symptom
.11 knowledge
-.21
-.21
Leadership 0
Leadership 1
Vs 2
.42
-.65
-.15
Household
asset score
-.10
Intensity
-.28
-.12
Δ label
reading
Δ Ib pesticide
use (higher
decile= greater
reduction)
.11
Δ = change, positive for symptom knowledge and label reading
All paths shown were p<0.05
GofF indices: Chi-Square p=0.7, CFI=TLI=1.0, RMSEA=0.0, WRMR=0.5
Community (level II) descriptive statistics (n=24)
Variables
Parish proportion of households
with unsatisfied basic needs*
< 0.8
0.8 to <0.9
0.9+
Community organizations (#)
0-1
2-3
4-7
Community Intervention Scores:
Coverage^
Intensity+
# of
Communities
3
11
10
5
12
7
Continuous
(range, median, mean (SD)
0.59 – 1.0, 0.85,
0.85 (0.13)
#/100 families
0 - 7.8, 2.3, 2.9 (2.2)
0-32.7, 20.1, 18.8 (20.1)
0-22, 14.5, 12.8 (8.1)
• Unsatisfied basic needs index is the proportion of the parish population who suffer
persistent deficits in at least one of housing (absence of electricity, potable water,
sewage, space), health (access to trained health professionals), education (illiteracy,
less than primary school), and employment. 22
^ Coverage is the average percentage attendance (i.e. per 100 community members)
across intervention events.
Mixed multiple regression model - digit span
(household manager, n=376)
Model I
Level 1- baseline
β (SE)
Model III
Level II
β (SE)
Model IV
Reduced
β (SE)
2.61 (.25)*
.38 (.05)*
6.21 (1.0)*
.29 (.05)*
-.04 (.01)*
.17 (.17)
.21 (.26)
.16 (.06)*
-.14 (.15)
6.90 (.96)*
.28 (.05)*
-.03 (.01)*
.02 (.02)
.03 (.015)*
-.03 (.01)*
-.04(.01)*
Level I (individual/household)
Intercept
Digit Span in 2005
Age (yrs)
Education < 6 years (yes vs. no)
Alcohol-related problems score
Household Asset Score (2005)
Disposing of pesticide containers more adequate
Highly hazardous pesticide use reduction (per decile)
Level II (parish/community)
Proportion households with unsatisfied basic
necessities
Community organizations /100 families
Model comparison^
-2Log Likelihood
Change in -2LogL (df)
P-value for change in -2LogL
AIC
BIC
.13 (.06)*
.06 (.06)
1349.9
-58.4 (1)
<.0001
1357.9
1362.6
1294.5
-17.2(4)
.0018
1328.5
1348.6
1306.0
11.5 (9)
.2430
1322.0
1331.5
Process used to understand changes in
attitudes and practices in HortiSana
Farmer Field
School
Participants
Q method
Baseline
survey
Association
members
Most
Significant
Change
Typology
development
Follow-up
survey
METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN
Assessment of
changes by types
and groups
Referents
SAMPLE
GROUPS
DATA ANALYSIS
Different factor types of producers within
follow-up survey groups) (n=100 each)
100%
Other factors
90%
F3: Producers w ith
low social capital
80%
70%
F2: Risk-averse
producers
60%
F1: Environmentally
conscious producers
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Peru
Ecuador
Referent group
Peru
Ecuador
FFS participant
Peru
Ecuador
Producer Association
Changes observed in vegetable production
by group factor type and country
Group
Referent
Producer
Factor
Type
F1
% of farmers who
increased vegetable
consumption
Peru
Ecuador
Number of vegetable types planted
(% change wrt 2 yrs ago).
Peru
Ecuador
37%
71%
4.16 (13%)
8.24 (116%)
F2
21%
52%
3.88 (11%)
1.71 (-18%)
F3
100%
0%
3.00 (50%)
1.00 (-67%)
Other
40%
67%
0.75 (-83%)
2.67 (-11%)
FFS
F1
participants
F2
60%
97%
5.79 (10%)
7.77 (177%)
40%
33%
4.00 (11%)
3.00 (12%)
F3
0%
0%
2.33 (-22%)
10.00 (11%)
Other
50%
-----
4.50 (80%)
-----
F1
86%
92%
9.21 (193%)
7.77 (94%)
F2
0%
-----
6.00 (20%)
-----
Association
*F1= “Environmentally conscious” F2= “Risk Averse” F3=“Low social capital”
Sources
http://www.uharvest.org/uh
/cp.shtml?apc=c~a~-~ c8b5d858f82a18be4f87
c19e2ae8f1bd~-~-~-~-~-~-~1- &x=1164&vid=49
http://www.idrc.ca/
openebooks/492-5/
Urban Agriculture & Livelihoods
Among farming households along peri-urban to urban continuum, Kampala
(% of households surveyed)
Primary Activities
Main sources of income
Food Security Measure - Coping
• X-sectional survey with questionnaire, dietary recording
(household) and child measures (n=215 households)
Associations between urban farming
characteristics and household food security
• Food security greater with larger size of land being farmed,
raising pigs as part of UA, 2ndy education of the primary
caregiver - interactions
Figure 2: The Interaction between Size of land and Asset score in
Model 1
Predicted HFS Score
18
16
14
<=1/4 acre
>1/4 acre
12
10
8
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
Asset Score
6
7
8
Dietary Diversity Score
Highest quartile diet diversity
Lowest quartile diet diversity
Highest
quartile
%ASF
DDS=25, %ASF=46.7%
Samosa and tea with milk and sugar
Bean sauce with chapatti, green pepper, Irish
potato and tea with milk and sugar
Banana and sugarcane
Banana and jackfruit and sugarcane
Groundnut sauce, green leaf relish, fish relish, rice
and matooke, yam and Passion fruit juice
Samosa and passion fruit juice
Fried soya, roasted groundnut, fish relish and tea
with milk and sugar
DDS =5, %ASF=55.4%
Whole cow’s milk with sugar and
bun
Rice with avocado
Whole cow’s milk with sugar
Samosa
Lowest
quartile
%ASF
DDS=14, %ASF=0%
Maize porridge with tea and sugar
Cabbage relish (with tomato and oil) and chapatti
with tea and sugar
Passion fruit and green maize
Bean sauce, green leaf relish, eggplant, rice and
sweet potato
Orange and sugarcane
Green leaf relish, eggplant, rice and tea with sugar
DDS =4, %ASF=0%
Tea with sugar, bun
Sweet potato with groundnut
sauce
Sugarcane
Sweet potato with eggplant relish
Links among Food & Nutrition Security
Indicators
CRP, C–reactive protein;
WAZ, weight–for–age z-score; ZBMI, body mass index z-score
Policy Priorities
1. Review the Brazilian Right to Food model which includes UA
in support to family farms;
2. Adopt the framework of Kampala’s four types of UA farm
households, ranked by how common they are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
“survival”,
“sufficiency”,
“food security” and
“commercial”;
3. Support households in the “survival” and “sufficiency”
categories – especially those headed by women e.g. land
access for UA;
4. Institute appropriate urban planning and tenure measures to
support UA; and
5. Promote a multi-channel communication strategy, involving
health centers, schools, markets and street food vending
points.
Managing Urban Livestock for Health
• Urban chicken
rearing and
dairying
provide
important
economic
returns to
participating
households
Factors associated with the # household risk
mitigation strategies used
Factors
Descriptive
statistics
Coefficient (95% CI)
Robust
SE
p
Farmers believe UA is legal
54 farmers
2.17
(0.35-3.98)
0.802
0.024
Number of household
appliances
mean 2.08
2.42
(0.96-3.90)
0.649
0.005
Productivity orientation
• (l milk/herd size)
mean 1.78
0.70
(0.19-1.21)
0.225
0.012
Farmers have experienced
harassment over UA
4 farmers
-3.69
(-7.81-0.42)
1.818
0.073
Farmers consider disease the
major constraint
84 farmers
-1.60
(-3.27-0.06)
0.736
0.057
Access to electricity and
water
86 farmers
2.602
(1.29-3.92)
0.581
0.002
12.36
(9.91-14.80)
1.081
0.000
Constant
Number of clusters
Number of observations
10
121
R squared=0.335
Policy Priorities
1. Legitimize urban livestock keeping, given its income
and nutritional (later) benefits.
2. Improve sanitation, which will both:
a) provide healthier feed for animals; and
b) reduce human health risks
3. Institute neighborhood-level management and
reconciliation mechanisms to deal with nuisance
aspects of urban livestock.
4. Provide specific information, training and education
to farmers, especially women, given women’s role
in livestock keeping.
5. Highlight farmer-to-farmer extension in improving
animal products safety.
Sn E. Urban Governance for Health
• Story elucidated through
Rapid Outcome Assessment:
– Literature review & commissioned
timeline of key events
– Interviews with key actors, initial and
follow-up
– Workshop in which
a. Map out behaviour changes of key
actors
b. Finalise map of key events and
influences
Context-Evidence-Links Framework *
From the RAPID (Research and Policy in Development) program of the ODI
http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/
Kampala Urban Food Security Agriculture and
Livestock Coordinating Committee activities
• Continuous communication through all available channels
– Within Kampala City Council (KCC)
– NGO field visits
– Formal meetings
• Resource mobilisation
•Pressure on KCC to ‘rereview’ draft Ordinances
•Community consultation
process
•Facilitation of passage of
Ordinances
Kampala urban agriculture policy change process – Part 2: 1999-2006
Makumbi City
Minister
lobbies for
importance of
ordinances
Plan international
Living Earth start
UA activities
Presidential initiative on
poverty alleviation
through provision of
cows to women merry
go rounds
First World
Urban Forum
in Nairobi
Mayor gives
clear
message on
need for
laws
supporting
urban
agriculture
Regional
meetings on UA
& policy
Mayors/Ministers on
“Feeding cities in
Horn of Africa” Addis
2002
Funds from
DFID to
support
harmonizing
ordinances
EA & others facilitate field
visits for councillors & Mayor
to UA activities
Decision to
develop National
Policy on UA by
Min. of Ag.
Process of harmonising
of New Ordinances;
2004-2005
INCREASINGLY POSITIVE VIEW OF UA & NEED TO SUPPORT AS WELL AS REGULATE IT
1999
2000
Decision to review all outdated Ordinances and make
an UA law
Key
Policy related
Meeting/conference
Funding
2001
Drafts of ordinances
from 1999 Review
process
Research on
Informal
Food
Markets for
urban poor
(Muwanga)
2002
2003
2004
Re-Draft
Ordinances
Councillors”
workshop on
UA & policy
– RELMA
Lobby for
review of
Ordinances
Divisional
forums on
Ordinances
Farmers
consultations
Funds from
DFID & EA for
consultations
2005
KCC approves
ordinance
revisions
Mayor
assents to
ordinances
Further KCC
field visits to
UA activities
Piloting
guidelines
Final workshop on
strengthening
UA
DFID support
pilot testing of
guidelines
Research related
Other event
Key event/influence
Major collaborative research on UPA led by URBAN HARVEST. Scoping studies on livestock
keeping. Research on UPA and livelihoods (CIAT, Urban Harvest & collaborating org. 2002-2004).
Research on health and UPA ( Urban Harvest / KUFSALCC
KUFSALCC & collaborators)
2006
Global Reflections (i)
Access to Land
• Issues
– Long histories of inequitable land
ownership in LMICs
– Lack of formal title 35% of plots
among Huancayo, Peru peri-urban
families
– Increasing encroachment upon
farmland in HICs
• Responses
– Reforming Land Rights in Africa
(Tidiane Ngaido, 2011)
– Women in Agriculture: closing the
gender gap for development. (FAO
State of Food and Agriculture
2010-11)
– Including agriculture in urban
development planning (Castro &
Juarez, 2007)
Access to Water
• Issues
– Contamination of existing water
supplies
– Fluctuations in water cycle with
climate change
• Responses
– Use of wastewater in peri-urban
agriculture (Intnl Water Mgt Inst IWMI)
– Mitigation of climate change
– Community-based water
harvesting approaches (Sherwood
& Bentley, 2009)
– Micro-irrigation technologies,
including low cost drip irrigation
systems
Global Reflections (ii)
Appropriate Inputs
• Issues
– Greater dependence
on external inputs
often fostered by
agricultural
‘development’
programs
– Substantial trade/use
in fertilizers yet
declining productivity
• Responses
– International
Assessment of
Agricultural Science
and Technology for
Development
(IAASTD, 2007)
approaches
– State of the World
2011: Innovations
that Nourish the
Planet (Worldwatch
Institute)
Better Markets & Governance
• Issues
– Global markets in inputs and produce increasing
influence but concerns re transportation – carbon
costs, access, certification requirements, fairness
– Lack of a significant price differential. ‘lowequilibrium’ poverty trap, few f armers encouraged
to invest in organic production (Loomas 2010)
• Responses
– Manage global food trade appropriately, supports
but not subsidies, prevent dumping (Future of Food
& Farming. Foresight 2011)
– Value chains for nutrition (Hawkes & Ruel 2011)
– Alternative and Fair Trade (Reynolds LT, Murray D,
Wilkinson J (eds) 2008)
Family farm operations - Canada
• Decline in number and area of farms in Grey &
Bruce counties, Ontario
• Farm pluri-activity implies multiple operations,
activities, and people on and off farm (Bessant,
2006)
• People include (examples from
Fair Fields CSA (Community Supported
Agriculture)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Farmer or farmers
Farm family members, on and off farm
Local and migrant farm workers
Interns e.g. CRAFT programme
Work-shares in CSA
Volunteers
Agro-Ecological Sustainability
• Bessant (2006) highlighted two inter-related
components of sustainability:
– Social - household’s capacity to gain and maintain and
adequate livelihood in the face of external presssures
i.e. resilience; and
– Environmental – household preservation or
enhancement of resources supporting one’s own or
other’s livelihoods now and in the future
• Ecohealth approaches to ecosystems, society and
health (www.copeh-canada.org/ ) include both
References (i)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Antle JM, Cole DC, Crissman CC. Further evidence on pesticides, productivity and
farmer health: potato production in Ecuador. Agriculture Economics 1998;18:199-207.
Bessant KC. A farm household conception of pluriactivity in Canadian agriculture:
motivation, diversification and livelihood. Cdn Rev Sociol & Anthropol 2006; 43(1): 5172
Cole DC, Lee-Smith D, Nasinyama GW (eds). Healthy City Harvests: Generating
evidence to guide policy on urban agriculture. CIP, Lima, Peru and Makerere University
Press. 2008. 259 pp
www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/FCIT/PDF/healthy_city_harvestes.pdf
Cole DC, Orozco FA, Ibrahim S, Wanigaratne S. Community and household
socioeconomic factors associated with pesticide-using, small farm household
members' health: a multi-level, longitudinal analysis. International Journal for Equity
in Health 2011, 10:54
Cole DC, Prain G, Pradel W. Transforming Agricultural and Food Systems for
Environmental Sustainability, Food Security & Human Health. Chapter 9 in: Heymann J,
Barrera M (eds). Ensuring a Sustainable Future: Making Progress on Environment and
Equity, Oxford University Press. September 2013 pp 189-220
Crissman CC, Antle J, Capalbo S (eds). Economic, environmental and health tradeoffs
in agriculture: pesticides and the sustainability of Andean potato production.
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, "Natural Resource
Management and Policy" Series 1998, 281 pp.
References (ii)
•
•
•
•
•
Desmarais AA, Roppel C, Martz D. Transforming agriculture: Women farmers define a
food sovereignty policy for Canada. Ch 4 in Wittaman H, Desmarais AA & Wiebe N (eds).
Food Sovereignty in Canada. Creating Just and Sustainable Food Systems. Halifax &
Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood Publishing, 2011, pp 59-79
Leah J, Pradel W, Cole DC, Prain G, Creed-Kashiro H, Carrasco M. Determinants of
household food access among small farmers in the Andes: Examining the path. PMID:
22348247 Public Health Nutrition 2012: 1-12
Orozco F, Cole DC, Muñoz V, Altamirano A, Wanigaratne S, Espinosa P, Muños F.
Relationship among production systems, pre-school nutritional status and pesticide –
related toxicity in seven Ecuadorian communities – a multi-case study approach. PMID:
17658071 Food Nutr Bull 2007; 28, (2 , suppl.): S247-257
Orozco FA, Cole DC, Ibrahim S, Wanigaratne S. Health promotion outcomes associated
with a community-based program to reduce pesticide-related risks among small farm
households. PMID: 21330308 Health Promotion International 2011; doi:
10.1093/heapro/dar006
Pradel W, Prain G, Cole DC, Mera X, Pacheco R. Towards healthier horticulture:
evaluation of change in vegetable production, marketing and consumption in the
Peruvian and Ecuadorian Andes. Better Evaluation 2013