An evolving paradigm of agricultural mechanization development: How much can Africa learn from Asia?

Abstract

in 1975, provides research-based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition. IFPRI's strategic research aims to foster a climate-resilient and sustainable food supply; promote healthy diets and nutrition for all; build inclusive and efficient markets, trade systems, and food industries; transform agricultural and rural economies; and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is integrated in all the Institute's work. Partnerships, communications, capacity strengthening, and data and knowledge management are essential components to translate IFPRI's research from action to impact. The Institute's regional and country programs play a critical role in responding to demand for food policy research and in delivering holistic support for country-led development. IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world. About IFPRI's Peer Review Process IFPRI books are policy-relevant publications based on original and innovative research conducted at IFPRI. All manuscripts submitted for publication as IFPRI books undergo an extensive review procedure that is managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee (PRC). Upon submission to the PRC, the manuscript is reviewed by a PRC member. Once the manuscript is considered ready for external review, the PRC submits it to at least two external reviewers who are chosen for their familiarity with the subject matter and the country setting. Upon receipt of these blind external peer reviews, the PRC provides the author with an editorial decision and, when necessary, instructions for revision based on the external reviews. The PRC reassesses the revised manuscript and makes a recommendation regarding publication to the director general of IFPRI. With the director general's approval, the manuscript enters the editorial and production phase to become an IFPRI book.

Regional disparities and seasonal differences in climate risk to rice labour

“…Differences in mechanisation between and within LIC and LMIC are not a simple function of gross domestic product, and there is substantial variation within as well as between countries. Vulnerability may be higher in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, or for other crops, where there has been less uptake of agricultural machinery [ 39 , 40 ]. This is discussed further in supplementary material section 1.…”

Farm mechanisation in Nepal's Terai Region: Policy context, drivers and options

“…India's pathway to mechanisation was largely aimed at medium and large landholders, while Bangladesh focused on small landholders (Gupta, 2018), with Bangladesh focusing mainly on 2WTs, because of low levels of machine ownership (Gupta, 2018;Mottaleb et al, 2017). More recently, different CHC models have emerged informally and have increased machinery access to smallholder farmers (Diao et al, 2020). Both India and Bangladesh delivered support systems through extensive research and technological innovation (Afrad et al, 2019;Gregg et al, 2020;Manchikanti & Sengupta, 2011).…”

“…Both India and Bangladesh delivered support systems through extensive research and technological innovation (Afrad et al, 2019;Gregg et al, 2020;Manchikanti & Sengupta, 2011). Bangladesh also invested in strengthening its extension services with 26 000 staff under the Department of Agricultural Extension to meet the needs of farmers (Diao et al, 2020). Based on their contrasting investments in infrastructure and trade, coupled with enabling policy environments, both India and Bangladesh provide Nepal a chance to learn from two mechanisation pathways that have both been unique and successful.…”

“…Mechanisation in Nepal has made progress in the last two decades, including an increase in mechanised farm preparation rate from 5 per cent in 1995-1999 to 23 per cent in 2010-2016 (Diao et al, 2020). However, the use of agricultural machinery has concentrated in the low-lying Terai regions with 46 per cent of farms using any machinery compared to less than 8 per cent in the hills (Takeshima, 2017).…”

“…While India has historically influenced machinery adoption in the Nepal Terai, Bangladesh can also provide lessons on intensifying agricultural production despite land fragmentation by focusing on small-scale machinery (Biggs & Justice, 2016). Both India and Bangladesh made substantial progress in terms of mechanised land preparation area with rates increasing from 10 per cent in 1980 to 20 per cent in 1990 and 25 per cent in the mid-1990s to 80 per cent in the late 2000s (Diao et al, 2020). The current rate of mechanisation is at similar levels to the early stages in Bangladesh and India; there is substantial opportunity for Nepal Terai to learn from its neighbours in the south (i.e., India and Bangladesh) on the divergent pathways they have taken towards achieving their mechanisation objectives.…”