Skip to content

IFPRI Discussion Papers Examine Impacts of Climate Change Adaptation and Health on Agriculture

August 10, 2010

Strategies for Adapting to Climate Change in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa, International Food Policy Research Institute, July 2010

From the report: This report profiles the available climate change–related datasets and their accessibility and procurement details in the 10 ASARECA member countries. The report additionally assesses the incorporation of climate change adaptation strategies in national development plans and discusses each country’s position in the current UNFCCC negotiations. The study was conducted using a combination of extensive literature reviews and field visits to all 10 ASARECA member countries: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda.

Access the report here.

Do Health Investments Improve Agricultural Productivity?, International Food Policy Research Institute, July 2010

From the paper: Determining the causality between health measures and both income and labor productivity remains an ongoing challenge for economists. This review paper aims to answer the question: Does improved population health lead to higher rates of agricultural growth? In attempting to answer this question, we survey the empirical literature at micro and macro levels concerning the link between health investments and agricultural productivity. The evidence from some micro-level studies suggests that inexpensive health interventions can have a very large impact on labor productivity. The macro-level evidence at the country and global level, however, is mixed at best and in some cases suggests that health care interventions have no impact on income, much less on agricultural productivity. At both micro and macro levels, the literature does not provide a clear-cut answer to the question under investigation. Overall, the review reveals a great deal of heterogeneity in terms of estimation methods, definition and measurement of health variables, choice of economic outcomes, single-equation versus multiple-equation approach, and static versus dynamic approach. The actual magnitude of estimated elasticities is difficult to assess in part due to estimation bias caused by the endogeneity of health outcomes. We also found significant gaps in the literature; for example, very little attention is given to demand for health inputs by rural populations and farmers.

Access the paper here.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: