Background The preservation of the economic livelihood of tobacco farmers is a common argument used to oppose tobacco control measures. However, little empirical evidence exists about these livelihoods. We seek to evaluate the economic livelihoods of individual tobacco farmers in Malawi, including how much money they earn from selling tobacco, and the costs they incur to produce the crop, including labour inputs. We also evaluate farmers’ decisions to contract directly with firms that buy their crops. Methods We designed and implemented an economic survey of 685 tobacco farmers, including both independent and contract farmers, across the six main tobacco-growing districts. We augmented the survey with focus group discussions with sub-sets of respondents from each region to refine our inquiries. Results Contract farmers cultivating tobacco in Malawi as their main economic livelihoods are typically operating at margins that place their households well below national poverty thresholds, while independent farmers are typically operating at a loss. Even when labour is excluded from the calculation of income less costs, farmers’ gross margins place most households in the bottom income decile of the overall population. Tobacco farmers appear to contract principally as a means to obtain credit, which is consistently reported to be difficult to obtain. Conclusions The tobacco industry narrative that tobacco farming is a lucrative economic endeavour for smallholder farmers is demonstrably inaccurate in the context of Malawi. From the perspective of these farmers, tobacco farming is an economically challenging livelihood for most.

Introduction Tobacco production continues to increase in low- and middle-income countries creating complications for tobacco control efforts. There is the need to understand and address the global tobacco leaf supply as a means of decreasing tobacco consumption and improving farmers livelihoods in line with Article 17 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This study aims to understand the reasons why farmers grow tobacco and identify factors that influence these reasons. Methods Primary survey data (N = 1770) collected in Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia in the 2013–2014 farming season. Data analysis uses both descriptive and multinomial logistical regression methods. Results Majority of farmers started and are currently growing tobacco because they believed it was the only economically viable crop. Compared with Malawi, farmers in Kenya and Zambia have a 0.2 and 0.4 lower probability of growing tobacco, respectively because they perceive it as the only economically viable crop, but a 0.04 and 0.2 higher probability of growing tobacco, respectively because they believe it is highly lucrative. There are district/county differences in the reasons provided with some districts having a majority of the farmers citing the existence of a ready market or incentives from the tobacco industry. Statistically significant factors influencing these reasons are the educational level and age of the household head, land allocated to tobacco and debts. Conclusion There is the need to address the unique features of each district to increase successful uptake of alternative livelihoods. One consistent finding is that farmers' perceived economic viability contributes to tobacco growing. Implications This study finds that perceived economic viability of tobacco is the dominant factor in the decisions to grow tobacco by smallholder farmers in Malawi, Kenya, and Zambia. There is the need to more deeply understand what contributes to farmers' perceived viability of a crop. Understanding and addressing these factors may increase the successful uptake of alternative livelihoods to tobacco. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that a one-size fits all alternative livelihood intervention is less likely to be effective as each district has unique features affecting farmers' decisions on growing tobacco.

Tobacco supply remains a pressing challenge to tobacco control. Tobacco remains a dominant cash crop in many low- and middle-income countries, despite the evidence suggesting that it is not as profitable as industry claims and is harmful to health and the environment. In order to implement successful and sustainable alternative livelihood interventions, it is important to understand why farmers continue to grow tobacco. This study explores this question from the perspective of farmers in Indonesia and Philippines. This study was informed by interpretive description methodology. Data was collected through focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 7) with farmers (n = ~60). The FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then translated into English. An inductive thematic analysis of the data was conducted to identify and categorize the reason provided by participants. We identified two overarching themes: (1) perceived viability (profitability, ready market, and environmental factors) and (2) financial context. Financial context included lumpsum payments and access to financial loans and credit facilities in light of their lack of capital. These results highlight that, in addition to identifying viable alternatives to tobacco, institutional factors such as improved access to credit and well-developed supply chains are key to the successful uptake of alternative livelihoods.

Tobacco farming households enter into contract with tobacco companies to realise perceived economic benefits. The narrative that tobacco farming is a lucrative economic undertaking for smallholder farmers, however, is inaccurate in the context of Kenya.

Unhealthy foods and tobacco remain the leading causes of non-communicable disease (NCDs). These are key agricultural commodities for many countries, and NCD prevention policy needs to consider how to influence production towards healthier options. There has been little scholarship to bridge the agriculture with the public health literature that seeks to address the supply of healthy commodities. This scoping review synthesizes the literature on government agricultural policy and production in order to 1) present a typology of policies used to influence agricultural production, 2) to provide a preliminary overview of the ways that impact is assessed in this literature, and 3) to bring this literature into conversation with the literature on food and tobacco supply. This review analyzes the literature on government agricultural policy and production. Articles written in English and published between January 1997 and April 2018 (20-year range) were included. Only quantitative evaluations were included. Studies that collected qualitative data to supplement the quantitative analysis were also included. One hundred and three articles were included for data extraction. The following information was extracted: article details (e.g., author, title, journal), policy details (e.g., policy tools, goals, context), methods used to evaluate the policy (e.g., outcomes evaluated, sample size, limitations), and study findings. Fifty four studies examined the impact of policy on agricultural production. The remaining articles assessed land allocation (n = 25) (e.g., crop diversification, acreage expansion), efficiency (n = 23), rates of employment including on-and off-farm employment (n = 18), and farm income (n = 17) among others. Input supports, output supports and technical support had an impact on production, income and other outcomes. Although there were important exceptions, largely attributed to farm level allocation of labour or resources. Financial supports were most commonly evaluated including cash subsidies, credit, and tax benefits. This type of support resulted in an equal number of studies reporting increased production as those with no effects. This review provides initial extrapolative insights from the general literature on the impact of government policies on agricultural production. This review can inform dialogue between the health and agricultural sector and evaluative research on policy for alternatives to tobacco production and unhealthy food supply.

BackgroundIn principle, trade and investment agreements are meant to boost economic growth. However, the removal of trade barriers and the provision of investment incentives to attract foreign direct investments may facilitate increased trade in and/or more efficient production of commodities considered harmful to health such as tobacco. We analyze existing evidence on trade and investment liberalization and its relationship to tobacco trade in Sub-Saharan African countries.MethodsWe compare tobacco trading patterns to foreign direct investments made by tobacco companies. We estimate and compare changes in the Konjunkturforschungsstelle (KOF) Economic Globalization measure, relative price measure and cigarette prices.ResultsPreferential regional trade agreements appear to have encouraged the consolidation of cigarette production, which has shaped trading patterns of tobacco leaf. Since 2002, British American Tobacco has invested in tobacco manufacturing facilities in Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa strategically located to serve different regions in Africa. Following this, British America Tobacco closed factories in Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, Mauritius and Angola. At the same time, Malawi and Tanzania exported a large percentage of tobacco leaf to European countries. After 2010, there was an increase in tobacco exports from Malawi and Zambia to China, which may be a result of preferential trade agreements the EU and China have with these countries. Economic liberalization has been accompanied by greater cigarette affordability for the countries included in our analysis. However, only excise taxes and income have an effect on cigarette prices within the region.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the changing economic structures of international trade and investment are likely heightening the efficiency and effectiveness of the tobacco industry. As tobacco control advocates consider supply-side tobacco control interventions, they must consider carefully the effects of these economic agreements and whether there are ways to mitigate them.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-017-0305-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tobacco is the primary export commodity in Malawi and an important contributor to foreign earnings. The entrenchment of tobacco interests within government has partly explained why Malawi has lagged in its efforts to address the health consequences of tobacco and has been a vocal opponent of global tobacco control. Despite the extensive historical and entrenched relationship between the economy of Malawi and tobacco production, there have been important shifts at the highest policy levels towards the need to explore diversification in the agricultural sector. There is explicit recognition that alternatives to tobacco production must be pursued. This study provides an analysis of the policies and perspectives that characterize contemporary government approaches to tobacco and alternatives in Malawi by interviewing key government officials working on tobacco policy and reviewing recent policy documents. This research finds that there is openness and movement towards reducing tobacco growing in Malaw, including efforts to reduce tobacco dependency. Rather than a singular tobacco policy discourse in the country, there is a somewhat conflictual set of policies and perspectives on the future of tobacco in Malawi. Informing these policies and perspectives is the interplay between the economics of agricultural production (tobacco vs other crops), global markets (ranging from the ability to generate export earnings to the inability to compete with wealthier countries’ non-tobacco crop subsidies) and the lack of developed supply and value chains other than those created by the transnational tobacco industry. The implications for government policy supporting a move away from tobacco dependence are not straightforward: there is a need to fill the supply chain gap for alternative crops, which requires not only strong intersectoral support within the country (and some challenge to the residual pro-tobacco narratives) but also international support.

No abstract