25.06.2013 Views

Bananas and Food Security - Bioversity International

Bananas and Food Security - Bioversity International

Bananas and Food Security - Bioversity International

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

766 Les productions bananières / <strong>Bananas</strong> <strong>and</strong> food security – Session 4<br />

Other perceived problems are Erwinia (6%) <strong>and</strong> nematodes (2%). It is possible that<br />

in the cases where wind was seen as a problem, the problem was in fact nematodes. Farmers<br />

do not know about nematodes, as they are not visible. In certain cases, the farmers<br />

did not really know what their problem was. They show us affected plants <strong>and</strong> we identified<br />

the problem.<br />

Irrigation<br />

All the big farmers (class 5) have an irrigation system. In class 4 only 25% of the farmers<br />

have one, as do only a few farmers in the other classes. In our sample small farmers had<br />

access to irrigation only when there was a river near their field.<br />

Sensitivity to risks<br />

The application of new techniques or the introduction of new varieties always implies a<br />

risk for the farmer. This can be one of the reasons why farmers prefer not to experiment<br />

with new techniques. Not all farmers dare risk economic losses if an experiment does not<br />

have the expected results. Thus a farmer with more resources has a greater capacity to<br />

experiment than a smaller one with fewer resources. We decided therefore to look for a<br />

variable which we could use as an indicator of the risk sensitivity of the farmer. We will<br />

present some results.<br />

We define the concept of sensitivity to economic risk as the capacity to sustain losses.<br />

The farmer with the greater capacity to do so is less sensitive to economic risk. We assume<br />

that a farmer with more l<strong>and</strong> has more resources <strong>and</strong> is less sensitive to risk. To test<br />

the validity of this hypothesis we used the following variables:<br />

• the possession of animals (especially cows);<br />

• access to transport;<br />

• the use of fertilisers <strong>and</strong> pesticides.<br />

The possession of animals<br />

Half of the farmers we interviewed possess cows, pigs <strong>and</strong> horses. The great majority also<br />

own chickens. Farmers with more access to l<strong>and</strong> have more animals. The farmers of<br />

class 5 are the exception. They are specialised in agriculture or in cattle-raising. There is<br />

however no linear correlation between the number of cows <strong>and</strong> the size of the farm.<br />

Transport<br />

Approximately half of the farmers we interviewed have access to transport (Table 8). For<br />

half of this group, transport means a horse. This means that many farmers do not<br />

consider a horse as good transport. Fifteen percent have a tractor, 10% oxen <strong>and</strong> only 5%<br />

Table 8. Possession of transport (%).<br />

Have access to transport class 1 class 2 class 3 class 4 class 5 all classes<br />

yes 21.9 48.6 57.1 73.3 100.0 46.0<br />

no 78.1 51.4 42.9 26.7 0.0 54.0

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!