Search

The ability to manage financial risk is especially important for people earning their living through agriculture. Many farmers only get paid once or twice a year, and households need to stretch their earnings across the year by saving or borrowing money. Moreover, agricultural production faces a variety of risks related to both production and markets because of their exposure to weather and disease shocks. Households engaged in agriculture may thus especially benefit from financial inclusion—access to and use of formal financial services. This paper explores the topic of financial risk management in agriculture—how adults who rely on growing crops or raising livestock as their household's main source of income manage financial risk and use financial services. The paper summarizes new data based on a nationally representative survey of about 15,000 adults in 15 lower-middle- and low-income Sub-Saharan African economies collected as part of the World Bank's Global Findex database. The majority of these adults reported suffering a bad harvest or significant livestock loss in the past five years, and most bear the entire financial risk of such a loss. Most adults in agricultural households lack the financial tools -- such as insurance, accounts, savings, and credit -- that could help them manage financial risks.

This report presents an assessment of Zimbabwe’s agriculture sector disaster risk and management capacity. The findings indicate that Zimbabwe is highly exposed to agricultural risks and has limited capacity to manage risk at various levels. The report shows that disaster-related shocks along Zimbabwe’s agricultural supply chains directly translate to volatility in agricultural GDP. Such shocks have a substantial impact on economic growth, food security, and fiscal balance. When catastrophic disasters occur, the economy absorbs the shocks, without benefiting from any instruments that transfer the risk to markets and coping ability. The increasing prevalence of ‘shock recovery-shock’ cycles impairs Zimbabwe’s ability to plan and pursue a sustainable development path. The findings presented here confirm that it is highly pertinent for Zimbabwe to strengthen the capacity to manage risk at various levels, from the smallholder farmer, to other participants along the supply chain, to consumers (who require a reliable, safe food supply), and ultimately to the government to manage natural disasters. The assessment provides the following evidence on sources of risks and plausible risk management solutions. It is our hope that the report contributes to action by the Government of Zimbabwe to adopt a proactive and integrated risk management strategy appropriate to the current structure of the agricultural sector.

The objective of this paper is to develop an approach for integrating a gender dimension into Agricultural Sector Risk Assessments (ASRAs). The focus is on the approach because both agricultural risk and gender issues are contextual, thus the outcomes of a gender-based risk assessment are highly dependent on the social, cultural, geo-graphic, and economic contexts of the setting in which the assessment is applied. The organization of the paper reflects the challenges of incorporating a gender dimension into ASRAs. The conceptual framework and step-by-step illustrations presented herein are based on lessons learned by the World Bank and other institutions in assisting developing economies in conducting sector and key commodity supply chain risk assessments (World Bank 2015a). The paper also relies on recent work by international institutions and academic research that offer insights into the complexities of gender issues in relation to agricultural shocks. These experiences inform this paper’s case for a gender-based approach to Agriculture Risk Management (ARM) and help to illustrate a practical, stepwise approach for conducting gender-based ASRAs. This paper is arranged as follows: Chapter 2 offers a summary of the conceptual framework for risk management, including addressing why a gendered approach to ASRAs is essential; Chapter 3 shows the available evidence that agricultural risk has a gender-differentiated impact on farming households and that farming households adopt a gender-differentiated response to risk; Chapter 4 describes a step-by-step operational approach for doing so, and includes guidance for formulating gender-smart policies and strategies for strengthening agricultural systems’ resilience; and Chapter 5 presents a summary of findings and concluding remarks.

The study focuses on themes and areas that have been identified as highly relevant for the modernization and commercialization of the agriculture sector. The study originally aimed to review: agricultural marketing, processing and exports; food safety; agricultural “cooperation,” including farmers’ groups; agricultural extension and agricultural insurance. This coverage was subsequently modified to: (i) avoid repetition of existing work; (ii) draw more extensively on WBG experience in other countries; (iii) address relevant long-term issues more directly; and (iv) to inform discussion of relevant issues on which little information was available. The proposed review of marketing, processing and exports, an area that has already been well studied – was thus replaced with a review of global experience in developing successful export-led agricultural industries. Similarly, the study of agricultural ‘cooperation,’ an area also widely studied, was replaced with an analysis of agricultural land markets. Both “cooperation” and land markets are highly pertinent to the need to increase farm size to improve competitiveness. Land markets offer a more structural, long-term response to this problem, however, a response that so far has received little attention. Finally, an analysis of public expenditure on agriculture was added to provide insight into public expenditure on long-term versus short-term sector objectives. The review outlines the elements of a long-term framework based on building a cluster-based, institutional framework for horticultural exports, and suggests the need to prioritize associated development of agricultural extension, food safety, agricultural land markets and agricultural risk management. Horticulture is viewed as a vector for modernization and commercialization, due to its demonstrated potential for exports. The proposed framework would drive growth and change throughout the sector, however, due to the sector-wide impact of support for extension, food safety, land markets and risk management.

This report is the outcome of assessment and is intended as an advisory note to the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) to enable them to identify a strategy and potential public investments to improve current risk-management practices in the rice supply chain. This report identifies the major risks facing the rice supply chain, ranks them in terms of their potential impact and frequency, and offers a framework for improving current risk-management practices. The recommendations and findings will provide a basis for follow-up planning work by the Government of Guyana (GoG), the World Bank, and other development partners. The findings and analysis of this initial assessment are based on a methodology designed by the Agricultural Risk Management Team (ARMT) for assessing risks in agricultural supply chains. This report provides an indicative list of potential solutions to address the dominant risks in the rice supply chain; however, the assessment or evaluation of the individual solutions was beyond the scope of this exercise. To ensure the greatest return on future public investments in implementing risk management solutions, GRDB and MoA need to undertake an exhaustive cost-benefit assessment of different options. This will enable MoA to identify and implement the necessary activities to reduce the vulnerability of the rice supply chain in Guyana.