The extreme poverty line is the most commonly used benchmark for poverty, set at US$ 1.90 by the World Bank. Another benchmark, based on the Anker living wage methodology, is the remuneration received for a standard work week necessary for a worker to meet his/her family’s basic needs in a particular place. The living wage concept has been used extensively to address incomes of plantation workers producing agricultural commodities for international markets. More recently intense discussion has emerged concerning the ‘living income’ of smallholder farmers who produce commodities for international supply chains on their own land. In this article we propose a simple method that can be used in all types of development projects to benchmark a rural ‘living income’. We launch the Living Income Methodology, as adapted from the Living Wage Methodology, to estimate the living income for rural households. In any given location this requires about one week of fieldwork. We express it per adult equivalent per day (AE/day) and data collection is focused on rural households and their immediate surroundings. Our three case studies showed that in 2017 in Lushoto District, rural Tanzania, the living income was US$ PPP 4.04/AE/day, in Isingiro District, rural Uganda, 3.82 and in Sidama Zone, rural Ethiopia, 3.60. In all cases, the extreme poverty line of US$ PPP 1.90 per capita per day is insufficient to meet the basic human rights for a decent living in low-income countries. The Living Income Methodology provides a transparent local benchmark that can be used to assess development opportunities of rural households, by employers in rural areas, including farmers hiring in labour, while respecting basic human rights on a decent living. It can be used to reflect on progress of rural households in low-income countries on their aspired path out of poverty. It further provides a meaningful benchmark to measure progress on Sustainable Development Goal 1, eliminating poverty, and 2, zero hunger and sustainable food systems, allowing for consideration of the local context.

No abstract

No abstract

In this article we reflect on the discussions as to whether breeding and seed system development should proceed along its current well established route of developing varieties with a higher agricultural productivity or if the diversity of farmers, their contexts and rationales requires broader approaches. We make use of data from a recently held survey (2018) in West Kenya. The data show that some 80% of the households in the survey planted both local and hybrid maize varieties. The choices that people make about which variety to plant are many. Apart from rainfall, the availability of cash, the promise of a good yield, the presence of projects and programs and the culture of seed also influences these choices. We argue that an inclusive demand-oriented maize breeding and seed system needs to include a range of varieties and seed sources and to develop and support different delivery pathways to fit farmers’ diverse use of seeds and varieties. Our findings also indicate the need for more systematic study of the diversity of farmers’ rationales and the performance of crop varieties. This would provide useful information for all the actors involved.

No abstract