Presentation caron v8

20,010 views
19,946 views

Published on

Patrick Caron Director General CIRAD presentation on World Agriculture Watch at IFAD Farmers' Forum 2012

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
20,010
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
684
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation caron v8

  1. 1. Why could FOs beinterested by being part of the WAW Initiative? Patrick Caron General Director Cirad 23rd February 2012
  2. 2. Three issues to start with• Farming and impacts : agricultural holdings, territories and global challenges ?• Farming and impact : time scales ?• Farmers’ Organizations : essential stakeholders to join WAW ? Madagascar 2
  3. 3. Farming and impactsAgricultureS are at the nexus ofglobal challenges but: – Expression at local level : farms and territories Hypothesis : From ILC, 2012 – Types of farms, different impacts Different business models x territories, different impacts : – Structural change and impact Production (not only !) Local resources and assets Employment ? Distribution of incomes GHG Water availability etc. 3
  4. 4. Time scales : farming and impact ? Agriculture and sustainability ? – Quick changes to adapt – … but often medium and long term processes, as for policy changes – … whose impacts are long term and cumulative, as for landscape Hypothesis : Different business models, ? Different consequences for sustainability 4
  5. 5. FOs : essential stakeholder to join WAW?• Robust figures and evidences on time and space impacts of different business models ?• Engage in debate on business models and policy options (eg Family farms vs Modern Enterprises) – Based on relevant, updated and validated local analysis and information – Taking on board different scales and at different levels : territory, national, international• Involving FOs in debate !• Design with FOs conceptual and methodological framework for observation at territory and farm levels 5
  6. 6. In order to illustrate : Madagascar
  7. 7. An initiated WAW…First proposal … and work in progress Bringing stakeholders together Share scattered Observatory information and data management Collective understanding, convergences, conflicts Management Decision making Policy making 7
  8. 8. An initiated WAW… : Illustrations• Conceptual and methodological framework available for discussion and improvement• Pilot research project funded by Cirad to work on methodological issues in partnership with stakeholders – Ex : Madagascar 8
  9. 9. Conceptual and methodological framework WAWProposal … and work in progress 9
  10. 10. LAKE ALAOTRA IN MADAGASCARAn observatory as a process
  11. 11. Why Lake Alaotra? Rice Granary Agricultural employment Ecological richness; RAMSAR Area System at risk: slash and burn, erosion, biodiversity threats Coexistence of family farms and farming entrepreneurs Agricultural Innovations Knowledge accumulation and partnerships A consistent geographical territory
  12. 12. Use of satellite information 1969 2006 Land Use Changes 13
  13. 13. Participatory identification of constraints and challenges 8 workshops and working groups in Antananarivo and Lake Alaotra : from main issues to indicators screening  Mobilization different stakeholders : unusual brainstorming about their common territory  Shared concerns about interactions between agricultural and socio-economical and environmental issues CLIMATE WATER Increasing risks, Quality and fishing climate change resource PRODUCTION Temporary labor Lack of Input access integratedinformation to FOREST and PONDS SOIL and RICE FIELDS understand Rational cuttings, Fertility, erosion, clearings, biodiversity, and manage invading species, fires sand silting-up
  14. 14. Participatory mapping sessionswith local multiple stakeholders Zone d’élevage de volaillesInteractions Zone de pêchehighlighted by FOs :Rice cultivation onponds and lack of reedfor craft use and housebuilding Zone touchée par l’insécurité alimentaire Zone touché par l’insécurité des biens et des personnesReduction of zebus, Terrain colonialmanure and rice yields Zone transformée en rizière
  15. 15. Existing data inventory at holding level Indicateurs individuels Sources3 different sources RFR :2008- ROR : (99) RA : 2005 2011 2005-11Different years Typologie des EA   Different variables Caractéristiques structurelles  Capital   Foncier       Main dœuvre    Fonctionnement  Système dactivités   Pratiques agricoles Production    Consommations intermédiaires    Marges brutes / production    Revenus    Sécurité alimentaire    Capacités    Energie    17
  16. 16. Typology of farms Farm Farm income inc./ Self sufficiency in rice (eur/yr) total income Access to landscapeA : Large rice farms 3 - 6 ha IR ; > 4ha up-land 2 390 100% units (irrigation) extensive ; cattleB : Rice farmers with 3 ha IR unsercured ; 2-3 ha up- 2 670 100% Off farm acticvitiesunsecured yields land fully cultivated (market oriented)C : Selfsufficient farmers 1-3 ha IR unsecured ; <3h up- 700 62%focused on upland fields land intensified (market oriented) ; some small cattle or off-farm activitiesD : Diversified farmers > 1,5ha IR unsecured ; off-farm 820 67% activities ; often cattle Conservation < 0,5ha IR unsecured ; 1 ha up- 720 94% agriculture : B & CE : Non-selfsufficientfarmers, involved in land intensified ; agricultureagriculture employment employmentF : Fishermen with 1 ha IR unsecured ; <0,5ha up- 670 31%agriculture employment land ; fishery G : Fishermen wihout Full-time fishery ; someland nore farming agriculture employmentactivities 18
  17. 17. Farming system modeling• Assessing the impact of alternative cropping systems Example : Type C farm Farm Cash Balance 1 500 1 000 500 Reference K ariarys 0 CA standard 2007 2010 2013 2016 -500 CA optimal -1 000 -1 500 19
  18. 18. Farming system modelingAssessing the impact of a shock : 50 % fertilizer price increase The “optimal Conservation” system is the most resilient and remains the most profitable, despite the use of fertilizers Increase of fertilizer price - Cumulated Cash Balance 4 000 CA optimal 3 000 CA opti - Fert increase 2 000 CA standard K Ariary 1 000 CA std - Ferti increase 0 2007 2010 2013 2016 Reference -1 000 Ref - Ferti increase -2 000 20
  19. 19. Evolution of assets’ structure A panel of 252 households, surveyed from 1999 to 2006 3 major types of assets’ structure Dynamic analysis :Accumulation strategies among initially Adjustment strategies of initially mediumweakly endowed households (1999- endowed households, in regressive trend2006) (1999-2006) 21
  20. 20. What Madagascar tells us…• Performances and side effect impacts : references but not easy to assess (space and time scales, functions, interactions)• Metrics and challenges for making data / information useful o Synthesis between knowledge sources ? o Articulation with census ? o Capture changes ? o New data ?• Involvement of FOs : o From participatory brainstorming to policy making ? o Develop partnership with stakeholders to improve data/information availability and use 22
  21. 21. • Comments and inputs welcomeWay forward! • « WAW sites » to address the issue of Agricultural Transformation through collaborative project • Feed the debate on the futures of agriculture from national to international levels trough evidences Include FOs in the governance of WAW at national levels and in the global architecture ? Contribution from research ? 23
  22. 22. Thank you for your attention!Contributions from-Patrick Rasolofo-Céline Ronfort-Hélène David-Benz-Eric Penot-Jacques Imbernon-Jean-François Bélières-Nicole Andrianirina-Lalaina Randrianarison-Pierre-Marie Bosc-Hubert George

×