Ike, Chinweoke Uzoamaka (author), Tranter, Richard (author), and Gadanakis, Yiorgos (author)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
2021-03-29
Published:
UK: Agricultural Economics Society, The
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 207 Document Number: D13166
Notes:
14 pages, To diversify the Nigerian economy and reduce dependency on food import, the Agricultural
promotion policy (APP) was developed and implemented in 2016. This policy aims to move
Nigerian agriculture to a commercial sector to ensure the creation of sustainable jobs and
wealth. However, little is known about the effects of the policy on biodiversity, dietary
diversity, and employment and income of the small-scale farmers who form the greater
proportion of the food producers. The study aims to assess the effectiveness of APP in
achieving social justice particularly for small-scale farmers, environmental sustainability and
economic viability through sustainable agriculture. To assess the effectiveness of APP, focus
groups discussions were held in six local governments in the North East geopolitical zone of
Nigeria. APP food security thrusts of strategic national food reserve, proper use of
agrochemicals and tractors, focus on forest food harvest and government support for large
scale and specialised farms are very effective for securing food price stability. Moreover, food
crop fortification is very effective in providing income support for households as it is the focus
on forest food harvest, and access to credit and labour subsidies for small farmers.
Encouraging organic farming is very effective in securing access to and availability of diversity
of food, biodiversity and employment. Food diversity, soil fertility, biodiversity and
employment also benefited from the provision of credit and labour subsidies. The outcome
of this discussion is important for shaping the Nigerian food system. Though the APP thrusts
are geared towards achieving sustainable development, Nigerian policy authorities should
focus more on encouraging organic farming, credit and labour subsidies for the smallholder
farmers, creating balance diet awareness, and forest preservation and food harvest to achieve
food security, environmental sustainability and employment.
25 pages, Adjustments and adaptive responses to diminishing resources (land, water, and energy) in agriculture due to population increase and climate change in the recent decades are varied. Proactive adaptive coping mechanisms must be instituted to avoid the onslaught of massive starvation. Organic and agroecological innovations are the logical options. But organic farming is not one-size-fits-all solution. While organic farming is considered as one of the solutions to farming in crisis, there are many barriers to its adoption. Among these constraints are (1) the nature of organic farming being difficult, laborious, and knowledge and skills intensive, the required environment (air, soil, and water), and the certification requirement and (2) the support systems from government and consumers not in place.
13 pages, No consensus exists regarding which are the most effective mechanisms to promote household action on climate change. We present a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comprising 3,092,678 observations, which estimates the effects of behavioural interventions holding other factors constant. Here we show that behavioural interventions promote climate change mitigation to a very small degree while the intervention lasts (d = −0.093 95% CI −0.160, −0.055), with no evidence of sustained positive effects once the intervention ends. With the exception of recycling, most household mitigation behaviours show a low behavioural plasticity. The intervention with the highest average effect size is choice architecture (nudges) but this strategy has been tested in a limited number of behaviours. Our results do not imply behavioural interventions are less effective than alternative strategies such as financial incentives or regulations, nor exclude the possibility that behavioural interventions could have stronger effects when used in combination with alternative strategies.
