We argue that more effective management of climate risk must be part of the response of the international agriculture community to the double crisis of persistent poverty and a changing climate. The most promising opportunities to adapt to climate change involve action on shorter time scales that also contributes to immediate development challenges. Climate risk management (CRM) combines systematic use of climate information, and technology that reduces vulnerability and policy that transfers risk. The cost of climate risk comes both through damaging extreme events and through forfeited opportunity in climatically-favorable years. Effective CRM therefore involves managing the full range of variability, balancing hazard management with efforts to capitalize on opportunity. We discuss several innovations for managing climate risk in agriculture, which have not yet been fully mainstreamed in international agricultural research-for-development. First, effective rural climate information services enable farmers to adopt technology, intensify production, and invest in more profitable livelihoods when conditions are favorable; and to protect families and farms against the long-term consequences of adverse extremes. Second, information and decision support systems synthesize historic, monitored and forecast climate information into forms that are directly relevant to institutional decisions (planning, trade, food crisis response) that impact farmer livelihoods. Third, innovations in index-based insurance and credit overcome some of the limitations of traditional insurance, and are being applied to pre-financing food crisis response, and to removing credit constraints

0305-750X/ $- see front matter doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00113-X

program on development strategies for less-favored areas

Risk and its consequences pose a formidable threat to poverty reduction efforts. This study reviews a plethora of community-based risk management arrangements across the developing world. These types of arrangements are garnering greater interest in light of the growing recognition of the relative prominence of household- or individual-specific idiosyncratic risk as well as the increasing shift towards community-based development funding. The study discusses potential advantages (such as targeting, cost and informational) and disadvantages (such as exclusion and inability to manage correlated risk) of these arrangements, and their implications for the design of innovative social fund programs. JEL Classification: O17, O19, O29

Christopher B. BarrettIt is the Policy of Cornell University actively to support equality of educational and employment opportunity. No person shall be denied admission to any educational program or activity or be denied employment on the basis of any legally prohibited discrimination involving, but not limited to, such factors as race, color, creed, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, age or handicap. The University is committed to the maintenance of affirmative action

asset poverty traps in rural semi-arid India

The Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II is an initiative to strengthen evidence-based policymaking in Ethiopia in the areas of rural and agricultural development. Facilitated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), ESSP II works closely with the government of Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI), and other development partners to provide information relevant for the design and implementation of Ethiopia’s agricultural and rural development strategies. For more information, see

agricultural research centers that receive principal funding from governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations, most of which are members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

agricultural research centers that receive principal funding from governments, private foundations, and international and regional organizations, most of which are members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

What keeps some people persistently poor, even in the context of relative high growth? In this paper, we explore this question using a 15-year longitudinal data set from Ethiopia. We compare the findings of an empirical growth model with those derived from a model of the determinants of chronic poverty. We ask whether the chronically poor are simply not benefiting in the same way from the same factors that allowed others to escape poverty, or whether there are latent factors that leave them behind? We find that this chronic poverty is associated with several initial characteristics: lack of physical assets, education, and ‘remoteness ’ in terms of distance to towns or poor roads. The chronically poor appear to benefit from some of the drivers of growth, such as better roads or extension services in much the same way that the non-chronically poor benefit. However, they appear to have lower growth in this period, related to time-invariant characteristics, and this suggests that they face a considerable growth and standard of living handicap