Urbanization and Changes in Farm Size in Sub-

Saharan Africa and linkages to food security

and nutrition

Agnes Andersson Djurfeldt

Department of Human Geography, Lund University

The big picture

• Urbanization

• Changes in farm size

• Consequences for food security and

farming

• Limitations of the big picture

Urbanization and urban

growth

• Urban population growth rate

• Urban growth driven by

-natural increase

-(net) rural to urban migration

-reclassification

-boundary changes

• Why does this matter?

• Urbanization: urban population growth

is faster than rural population growth

Measuring urban growth

• Global comparisons and analysis

based on UN projections

• Based in turn on latest census

data and estimates

• Quality and comparability issues

• Other data sources: E-geopolis,

World Bank agglomeration index

use universal criteria

Empirical tendencies

• African urban growth driven

primarily by natural increase

• Break with patterns from the

1960s/1970s, migration, 40%

• Reclassification, around 25%

between 1950-1980

• Regional differences pronounced,

overall urban population share

37%

African population growth rates

1950-2015• Slowing rates of urban annual growth,

peak in the 1960s (explains

overestimated urban growth)

• Lower mortality in urban areas and

high fertility, but signs of falling fertility

in the 1990s

• Decline in migration as a source of

urban growth

• Poverty rates much less improved than

in Asia

• More than half of urban population in

towns below 500 000 inhabitants

Source: UN-DESA World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 revision

Changes in farm size in

Africa• Declining average farm size

• Also mean per capita land size

seems to be declining.

• Top quartile farms on average four

to nine times bigger than in the

bottom quartile.

• Large variation in farm size within

countries

Effects on agriculture and

food security in rural areas

• Shifting urban dietary

preferences

• Potential commercial

opportunities

• Household level RUL

• Inclusion rests on accessibility,

type of urban growth dynamics,

city size distribution and

institutional aspects

Limitations of relying on the big picture• Pockets of intensification

• Differences in soil fertility and

climate

• Differences in access to urban

areas, markets, etc.

• Local institutional aspects

• Village level studies an important

complement to macro-level ones

Available micro level data

The Afrint Project

•2002: the possibilities and

challenges of staple crop

intensification

•2008: follow up on round one, to

gauge changes in the staple crop

sector.

•2013: farm-non farm interaction and

gender

African micro study

• 9 countries

• 20 regions

• 103 villages

• 4000 households (2354 in the

panel from 2002 to 2008)

• Purposively sampled in

dynamic and less dynamic

regions (21 in total)

• Representative at the village

level

11

What is the problem?

2000-

2002

Mean

yield

(t/ha)

2000-

2002

Potential

yield

(t/ha)

2000-

2002

Yield gap

(%)

2006-

2008

Mean

yield

(t/ha)

2006-

2008

Potential

yield

(t/ha)

2006-

2008

Yield gap

(%)

Maize 1,26 3,71 66% 1,08 2,91 63%

Sorghum 0,71 1,54 54% 0,39 1,04 63%

Rice 1,21 3,01 60% 1,23 2,82 57%

Partly/fully irrigated rice 1,75 4,27 59% 1,92 3,88 51%

Why is this a problem?

• Farmers are greatly reliant on farm income

• Non farm cash income makes up 34% of

total cash income for those who have this

type of income

• Around half the sample (51% in 2002 and

47% in 2008) lack non-farm income

Production related

constraints

• Decreasing farm sizes – from 2.42 to

2.16 ha.

• Very low use of fertilizer

• Low use of improved seed technology

• Uneven access to land

• Gender based discrimination

in access to productive resources

Market related

constraints

• Smallholder are both producersand consumers

• Expensive inputs, low producerprices

• Livelihoods prone to seasonality, extreme weather events –hedging bets outside agricultureto avoid seasonal shifts

• Division of labour over time and space crucial

• Multi-spatial systems of consumption

• Vicious cycle of poor producerand consumer confidence in the market as a provider of food

• Only half of the growers of

maize, cassava, and rice sell

some any output. A third for

sorghum.

• Share of non-commercialized

farmers has increased from 17%

to 21%.

• More maize but less sorghum is

being sold.

• Staple crop amounts sold

remain very low.

Consumption pressures related to multi-local

patterns of consumption and production

• Livelihoods prone to seasonality, extreme

weather events

• Division of labour over time and space

crucial

• Multi-spatial systems of consumption –

urban reliance on rural food

• Generally not reported in surveys –

considered to be part of household

consumption

• Underestimates the subsistence

obligations of the rural household

Food security and maize transfersIncome quintiles countrywise

Maize retained per CU including transfers (kg)

Maize retained per CU excluding transfers (kg)

Number of meals eaten during lean season

N

Q1 82 64 1,95 151Q2 103 86 2,16 205Q3 138 113 2,20 238Q4 185 152 2,29 280Q5 247 209 2,41 316Total 165 136 2,24 1190

Agricultural growth dynamics strongly

concentrated• Two dynamic types of production systems: mixed

farming, grain focused, extensive versus intensive,

high value crops in areas close to urban markets.

• Male earnings in the grains sector versus entry into

vegetable markets by female headed households

• Pro-poor agrarian growth strongly concentrated to

particular villages.

• Geographic rather than internal polarization

• Connection to markets varies greatly

• Most marginal areas: a retreat into subsistence,

withdrawal from technology use, shrinking

household sizes

Linkages to the nonfarm sector• Panel level data suggests a movement out

of the nonfarm sector and a return to

farming.

• High mobility between the two sectors

and types of nonfarm earnings

• Clear gender implications, with earnings

from the nonfarm sector making up for

poorer access to farm incomes for female

headed households

• The role of the nonfarm sector differs by

type of region

Strategic areas for agricultural

research vary by region

Well-connected, dynamic, intensive

-extension/education to meet standards

-market co-ordination

-irrigation

Grain based, mixed farming

-Technology for rainfed agriculture

-Commercial opportunities outside grains

-Small stock, livestock

-Micro-credit schemes

Marginal areas

-food security must be prioritized – little scope for

commercialization

-subsidized inputs

-cash transfers

-education improvements