Perceived effects of COVID-19 restrictions on smallholder farmers: Evidence from seven lower- and middle-income countries

Abstract

CONTEXT The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented global disruption and continues to wreak havoc. Dire predictions were made about the risks to smallholder farmers in lower- and middle- income, but hard data have been lacking. We present the results from 9201 interviews with smallholder farmers from seven countries. OBJECTIVE The objectives are to describe: i) how farmers perceive the key effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and containment measures on livelihoods and food security; ii) the effects on agricultural activities; iii) the coping strategies households deployed. METHODS Household surveys were conducted as part of ongoing monitoring programs during the latter half of 2020. Sites in seven countries were covered: Burundi; Kenya; Rwanda; Tanzania; Uganda; and then Vietnam and Zambia. Findings are representative of smallholder farmers across multiple districts per country. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Our results show that the effects of the COVID-19 containment measures were widespread and often perceived to be severe. Food purchase, off farm income, sale of farm produce, and access to crop inputs were all affected. In locations under more stringent restrictions during the time of the survey, up to 80% of households had to reduce food consumption or variety. Almost all households with off-farm incomes reported reductions, by half on average. A half to three-quarters of households (depending on the location) with income from farm sales reported losses compared to the pre-pandemic situation. In locations with more relaxed containment measures in place during the time of the survey, less frequent and less severe economic and food security outcomes were perceived by the respondent, with around 20% of households reporting negative outcomes. Mobility restrictions, reduced market access, crashes in sale price for agricultural goods, and soaring prices for food purchase were key factors. Sale prices generally dropped for all agricultural products in any given location, and affected not only high value perishable products, but also staple crops such as maize and cassava. Depending on the location, between 30% and 90% of the households applied coping strategies in response to the pandemic during 2020. There was an almost complete absence of official aid amongst households interviewed. SIGNIFICANCE Our results raise the thorny issue of how best to balance containment of COVID-19 against the wellbeing of the vulnerable rural population in lower- and middle-income countries. There is a risk that the buffering capacity of rural people will become exhausted. Possible policy measures to limit negative outcomes include i) tiered mobility restrictions with travel allowed for economic reasons; ii) short-term price guarantee schemes to stabilise the food system; iii) direct aid; iv) the timely re-installation of distribution channels for agricultural inputs.

The immediate impact of the first waves of the global COVID-19 pandemic on agricultural systems worldwide: Reflections on the COVID-19 special issue for agricultural systems

“… Hammond et al (2022) analysed a large collection of smallholder farmer surveys from seven countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-east Asia to assess their self-reported impacts of pandemic mitigation policies and their consequent coping strategies. They found consistent reporting from smallholders across these disparate countries on negative livelihood and food security consequences of pandemic mitigation measures like restricted movements of individuals and disruptions to agricultural markets.…”

“… Tougeron and Hance (2021) describe potential costs to agricultural science, extension, and risk mitigation due to restricted access to agricultural operations, which may result in future costs to agriculture (e.g., reduced agricultural pest surveillance by research and extension personnel). Documenting these experiences can hopefully lead to improved pandemic mitigation strategies that are able to both manage public health risks as well as the costs of human movement restrictions ( Hammond et al, 2022 ).…”

“…They showed both that the pandemic has impacted GHG emissions which are a significant agricultural policy target in many countries, but also that COVID-19 policy has the potential to undo progress made on climate mitigation policy for agriculture if the policy environment for agriculture is not examined more holistically. Hammond et al (2022) also contrasted COVID-19 mitigation policies with food security policy objectives and found significant contradictions in dual objectives to manage public health as well as agricultural livelihoods. Darnhofer (2021) offered an overview perspective on how the experience of the pandemic could help agricultural systems policy to think more about ‘bouncing forth’ from uncertainty and the unexpected with more investments in supporting complex adaptive agricultural systems, a point echoed by Lioutas and Charatsari (2021) .…”

Параметры Функционирования Малых Кфх В Пандемический Период

“…Мировая проекция экономических проблем (результаты исследований функционирования малых ферм в Китае, странах Азии, Африки), вызванных пандемическим воздействием, состояла практически из идентичных трендов, которые заключались в многоуровневых ограничениях мобильности, экономическом спаде производства, переформатировании каналов сбыта произведенной сельскохозяйственной продукции. У малых товарных домохозяйств в данных регионах средняя доля экономических потерь составила около 50 % [13].…”

Self-reported COVID-19 vaccination coverage in Venezuela: Results of national sample surveys (June-December 2021)

“…Household sample surveys have been used in different aspects related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A review in PUBMED as of May 18, 2022, identified publications on the following aspects: impact on food security (3), effect on household health expenditure (4), data collection (5), effects of control restrictions (6,7), educational effects (8), social distancing (9), effects on family well-being (10)(11)(12), relationship with smoking (13), prevalence (14)(15)(16)(17). In the specific topic of vaccines, only one publication was identified in which the use of household surveys to explore the acceptance of vaccines against COVID-19 was reported (18).…”