World Food Policy Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 92

The Negative Side of the Agricultural–Nutrition Impact Pathways: A Literature Review

a risk of worsening inequalities when
agricultural interventions benefit the
largest producers to the detriment of
the most vulnerable (FAO 2012). For
example, in Malawi, the auctioning
system introduced for tobacco led to a
lower price being paid to small farmers
than to large producers, who were the
only ones allowed to sell directly via
that system (Millard, Ferguson, and
Khaila 1990). The example of the green
revolution in Uganda also showed that
small farmers did not have the means of
using new technologies and were unable
to take advantage, like the others, of the
economic gains generated and of the
improvement to their food and nutritional
security (Munyonyo 1998).

systems and incomes; (iii) encourage
practices with low labor requirements
and activities enabling women to increase
their autonomy; (iv) set in place good
practices known to enable a reduction in
health risks; and (v) anticipate potential
exclusion effects of interventions, and pay
specific attention to vulnerable groups.
Overall, by ensuring coordination
between sectors when designing and
implementing interventions, it is possible
to identify and manage some aspects that
the agricultural sector can hardly tackle
alone. This set of precautionary principles
we proposed is intended to avoid any
harmful aspect of ADIs on nutrition.
This “do no harm” perspective can be
considered as a minimal definition of what
could be nutrition-sensitive agricultural
interventions. However, this also gives
us indirect insights on what could be
done to reinforce the positive impacts of
ADIs on nutrition, thus shaping a more
ambitious definition of nutrition-sensitive
agricultural interventions. It seems that
agricultural diversification, womenfocused
agricultural
interventions,
agroecology or the targeting of the most
vulnerable groups are some of the key
areas for such a definition.

We can wrap up the different
insights of our study to propose a larger
and more precise definition of what
nutrition-sensitive agricultural policies or
programs (NSAP) should be: they should
promote the positive linkages and at the
same time, avoid the drawbacks. It is an
issue to, at least, not harm people when
implementing a project. Some operational
recommendations can be drawn. First of
all, NSAP must recognize international
human rights agreements and endeavor
to implement them (Pascal 2014). NSAP

VIII - Discussion

T

his review of the literature
shows that certain agricultural
interventions that are successful
for certain aspects (production, income,
etc.) may have unexpected negative
effects on nutrition. The relations
between agriculture and nutrition
are eminently complex, the risks vary
depending on the nature and context of
the intervention, with economic growth
and development (Dorward 2013). No
recommendation can be made in absolute
terms. Recommendations below can
be applied to all scenarios, but must be
specified and tailored to each context.
Nevertheless, a few precautionary
principles can be applied: (i) identify
and keep track of nutritional risks at
the ADI design stage and throughout
the life span of the intervention; (ii)
promote diversification to prevent risks
linked to specialization of farming
91