Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Integrating CIAT Research in Africa


Published on

Presentation by Robin Buruchara for the CIAT KSW 2009

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integrating CIAT Research in Africa

  1. 1. INTEGRATING CIAT RESEARCH IN AFRICA Africa Team Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  2. 2. Outline • Introduction • PABRA Partnerships (What and How) • Achievements of PABRA • New Phase of PABRA • Opportunities for Integrating CIAT Research in Africa • Challenges and Opportunities • SSACP
  3. 3. CHALLENGES OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA  Population Growth - rapidly increasing population (6.7 m/ yr)  Poverty & Hunger ( 2000 - 334 m and 2010 - 435 m)  Climate change and water  Natural resources degradation & loss of biodiversity  HIV/AIDS and its impact on agriculture  Gender dimensions (rural male out-migration; Gender differences in decision-making)  Weak infrastructure and markets  Inappropriate policies  Inadequate capacity and Brain drain
  4. 4. AFRICA’S DEVELOPMENT AGENDA (AFRICAN RESPONSE) COMPREHENSIVE AFRICA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME’S (CAADP) Four Pillars Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 1 Rural infrastructure Increasing food land & water mgt & trade-related supply & reducing capacities for market hunger access Pillar 4 Agricultural research, technology dissemination & adoption  Integrated natural resource management  Adoptive management of appropriate germplasm  Development of sustainable market chains  Policies for sustainable agriculture Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP)
  5. 5. Common Goals to Address Africa’s Problems Millennium AU/NEPAD FARA / ASARECA CIAT FARA / ASARECA Development /FANR /CORAF /FANR /CORAF Goals Growth in Commitment to To reduce Eradicate GDP of 6% Commitment to to the indicators linked hunger and extreme pa by 2015 indicatorspovertyto the MDG for linked and poverty and poverty and MDG for poverty and NEPAD’s goal for improve human NEPAD’s growth economic goal for hunger and health in the economic growth halve, tropics through between 1990 research to Is increased and 2015, the Is increased increase the proportion of economic growth eco-efficiency of economic growth people whose 4% growth rate and improved agriculture and and improved income is less in agricultural livelihoods while enhance the livelihoods while than US$1 a productivity enhancing the nutritional value enhancing the day quality of the of foods. quality of the environment environment
  6. 6. CIAT AFRICA STRATEGY The CIAT Africa strategy aims to respond to African needs through research where CIAT and its partners have a comparative advantage. √ Contribution towards addressing the complex problems (poverty, productivity, impact on climate variation) √ Add value and addresses both regional goals & system priorities. √ Define and exploit CIAT’s global and regional comparative advantages √ A partnership based on value addition, synergy and achieving common and our strategic goals (research and development).
  7. 7. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS FOR CGIAR, CIAT, CIAT-AFRICA CGIAR/STRATEGIC GLOBAL CIAT CIAT AFRICA -PABRA OBJECTIVES A1. Food for People B1. Improved crops C1a. Improving nutrition and health of for vulnerable communities through the poor bean products C 1b. Pro-poor market development A2. Environment for B2. Improving soil C2a. Building soil assets for small farmer fertility People management productivity and environmental services C2b. Enhancing systems resilience so as to lessen or prevent impact of A3. Policies for environmental /ecological stresses B3. Latin America and C3. Building capacity building and People knowledge management for policy the Caribbean and B4. Catalyzing C4. Reaching (Institutional advocacy the hard to reach faster partnerships in REU strengthening). and B5. Mainstreaming more efficiently C5. Mainstreaming Gender Gender
  8. 8. TARGET REGION Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  9. 9. IMPACT Bean ZONES s TSBF Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  11. 11. DONORS CIDA, SDC, USAID, BMGF, McKnight, ASARECA, KHT, SADC-FANR , AGRA, KIRKHOUSE 9 7 Uganda - Sudan Central Africa Republic Tanzania (North) Congo Brazzaville DRC - W, North& East. Cameroun - Togo Kenya - Rwanda Burkina Faso 10 Burundi - E thiopia Guinea Country Angola - Lesotho Madagascar Senegal Malawi - Mozambique Swaziland - South Africa Tanzania-South - Zambia Zimbabwe - DR Congo-South Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  12. 12. Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) Member Countries (24)
  13. 13. HOW PABRA WORKS Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  14. 14. PABRA’ s Partnership: Complementary and efficient use of resources CIAT NARES: Biophysical Management Social Scientists Technology development Research actions: • Identify key thrusts: constraints/opportunities • Catalyze teams for strategic and applied work • Publish /share results to feed into future work Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  15. 15. PABRA’s Partnership: Complementary and efficient use of resources CIAT NARES: Development Biophysical Management Partners and Social Scientists Policy makers Technology development + Technology adaptation and priority setting policy support Identify key research •Engage partners for constraints /opportunities adaptive research to refine •Catalyze teams for technology across multiple strategic and applied work countries •Publish /share results to • Test approaches to upscale feed into future work fast, widely and equitably Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  16. 16. PABRA’s Partnerships Complementary and efficient use of resources CIAT NARES: Development Biophysical Management Partners and Users Social Scientists Policy makers Technology development Technology adaptation and Catalyze links and + priority setting policy support partnerships to reach users. Identify key research •Engage partners for adaptive constraints research to refine technology •Provide tools and methods /opportunities across multiple countries for widespread skills and •Catalyze teams for • Test approaches to upscale knowledge enhancement strategic and applied fast, widely + with equity. •Raise awareness work •Publish and share results •Test and use technologies •Publish /share results to feed into future work Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  17. 17. Shared Breeding Responsibilities: CIAT-HQ, CIAT-Africa & NARS Malawi & Tanzania & Uganda Red Dark Red Zimbabwe Mottled Kidney Rwanda Tanzania & Climbing Beans Small Red Ethiopia CIAT –Africa Regional Programs Snap Beans (French) Kenya CIAT Others HQ South Africa & Large Madagascar White Sugar, Tan & D R Congo & Yellow South Africa Pintos, Small South Africa White Carioca s & Ethiopia Kenya
  18. 18. Interaction Within and Between Networks Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  19. 19. 1. Structure of the networks…Primary and secondary partners Existing strong linkages between NBP, NGOs and Department of Extension at District Level (Dark Blue Circles)
  20. 20. ROLE VS BENFITS OF THE ALLIANCE Roles Benefits • Technology development & • Faster, efficient and wider adaption uptake of technologies • Catalyze the uptake of technologies • Facilitate the integration of • Increased impact discipline and partners (first and secondary; Regional and national) • Efficient use of resources • Strengthening capacity (human and materials) • Resource mobilization Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  21. 21. PAST ACHIEVEMENTS 2003 - 2008 Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  22. 22. PABRA Model, (2003 – 2008 Framework) Outputs Outcomes Impact Genetic improvement Increased ISFM & IPDM utilization of bean based technologies Improved Nutrition, Wider Impact Food Security, Income and Community Community skills Enhanced Empowerment for and knowledge capacity of Poverty Alleviation, communities and in a Sustainable Manner Gender and equity Partner skills Strengthening and knowledge institution and organization Institutional capacity (network) capacity
  23. 23. Pythium species (identified by sequencing) pathogenic to beans and their Isolates distribution Pathogenic Species Uganda Kenya Rwanda Total P. ultimum 17 9 23 50 P. 1 aphanidermatum 1 2 P. irregulare 9 1 10 P. myriotylum 1 1 2 P. torulosum 8 11 10 29 P. salpingophorum 12 1 4 17 P. spinosum 7 1 7 15 P. pachycaule 3 3 P. graminicola 7 7 P. nodosum 2 2 Reaction of AND 1062, RWR 719 and susceptible CAL 96 and LRK 33-1 P. paroecandrum 3 3 6 following inoculation with P. ultimum
  24. 24. A Taking advantage of benefits of molecular tools to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of technology development About 100 resistant lines out of 6000 Elite resistant sources: RWR 719, MLB-49-89A, AND1062, AND 1055 and SCAM 80CM/15. Resistance Markers identified in RWR 719, M, MLB-49-89A and AND 1062 Only one SCAR marker, PYAA19, in RWR 719 is useful and routinely used in MAS at CIAT Kawanda, Uganda Genetically variable - MAS used to detect F1 populations presence of desirable alleles - Field evaluation - Application of MAS M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 C F3 population - On-station PPB F4 Population - Application of MAS for ALS and Anthracnose 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C C - On-station PPB F5 Population - Seed increase of the MAS selected individual plants
  25. 25. Role of intercrops on root rots in bean based system  Pythium species from sorghum pathogenic on beans, sorghum and peas.  Alternative host for Pythium species  Role in of Scanning electron micrographs of sorghum intercrops on tissue: non-inoculated (left) and 8 days prevalence, after planting with in P. utlimum soil survival and
  26. 26. M C R Varieties released in PABRA region 2003-2008 Market Class Varieties Countries Released Red mottled 17 CD, KE, RW, ET, UG, ZW, SW, TZ, MZ Red Kidney 15 CD, MD, KE, RW, TZ,UG, ET, ZM, TZ Sugars/speckled 31 KE, CD, ET,UG, ZW, SW, TZ, MZ, MW, LE Climbing beans 26 CD, KE, TZ, MD, RW, ET, UG Small & Medium Red 9 ET, KE, MD, CD Navy & Large White 22 TZ, MD, ET, SU, ZW, ZM, SW, CD, ZA, LE Brown and Tans 24 RW, BU, DRC, ET, ZM, ZW, TZ, DRC, MW Purples & Others 3 ZM, CD, LE Total 147 Some countries have no breeding programs– but have released bean varieties. Some varieties are released in more than one country- “Nets that work for all”
  27. 27. Germplasm Screening for Biofortification G X E for Grain Fe concentration Accessions collected: 2849 Screened for minerals:1684 Maharagi Soja 120 Fe: range 27 to 114 ppm 100 80 Lowest: Mex 142 Kab 04 Iron, ppm Thika 60 Highest: Maharagi Soja, AND 620 Kab 05 Kak 40 Zinc : 12 to 62 ppm 20 Lowest : M211 0 Highest: VNB 81010 AND 620 GLP 2 Gofta M211 Maharagi MLB 49- Nakaja Soja 89A Roba-1 TY 3396- VNB 12 81010 Genotype G X E for Grain Zn concentration 40 •AND 620 and Maharagi Soja had the highest 35 Fe concentration across locations and 30 seasons 25 Kab 04 Zinc, ppm Thika 20 Kab 05 15 •VNB 81010 had the highest Zn concentration 10 Kak in all test sites and seasons 5 •Environmental factors influence grain 0 AND 620 GLP 2 Gofta M211 Maharagi MLB 49- Nakaja Roba-1 TY 3396- VNB mineral concentration Soja 89A 12 81010 Genotype •Partnerships with seed companies, NGOs, CBOs, nutrition/health programs etc critical in ensuring fast track lines reach intended end users
  28. 28. Participatory evaluation leaves of Maharagi Soja Line Grain Leaf Fe Zn Protein Fe Zn Protein (ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%) AFR 708 83 30 21.0 1062 52 17.0 K132 70 31 23.0 1931 53 15.6 TY 3396-12 95 33 nd 482 38 27.6 b. Trial range 49 -107 20-50 16 - 27 397-2498 20-67 15 - 27
  29. 29. Performance of Fast Track Bush Lines in Kenya, 2007 and 2008 Genotype Lowland sites Highland sites Mean yield Yield over Yield over Mean yield Yield over Yield over (kg ha-1) best check mean of (kg ha-1) best check mean of (%) checks (%) (%) checks (%) MN 1 1150 20.9 33.8 2030 32.6 45.1 MN 3 1130 18.8 31.5 1960 28.7 45.1 MN 6 1130 18.0 30.6 2800 80.6 97.7 MN 9 1010 6.1 17.5 1890 23.3 35.0 MN 5 880 -7.3 2.6 1150 -24.8 2.6 MN 10 950 -0.1 10.6 1210 -20.5 10.6 MN 2 880 -7.4 2.5 1260 -7.0 2.5 MN 11 510 -46.6 -40.3 1420 -46.6 1.8 GLP 92 950 1380 GLP 1127 800 1530 GLP 2 830 1280 Source: KEPHIS, 2008. GLP 92 (Mwitemania), GLP 1127 (Mwezi Moja) and GLP 2 (Rosecoco) were checks.
  30. 30. Yield of four mineral dense climbing bean lines evaluated in national performance trials at seven locations in Kenya over two years Line Status Mean yield across Yield over best environments check (%) (kg ha-1) MV 19 Candidate 2230 45.8 MV17 Candidate 2200 44.1 MV14 Candidate 2150 40.1 MV18 Candidate 1560 2.2 MAC 34 Check 1530 MAC 13 Check 1190 MAC 64 Check 1180 Vuninkingi Check 1110 •New varieties will need to be both nutritionally and agronomically superior, hence need to combine mineral density with resistance to biotic and abiotic in major commercial grain types Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  31. 31. Future Directions 2) Breeding short day runner beans (P.coccineus) 1) Snap Bean Breeding •Limited work in the region and experience 3) Beans for •Demand for public Hot, Humid bred lines on the rise •Major traits: pod lowland shape, size, texture, Tropics rust, angular leaf spot •Both bush and climbing types •Major export e.g. Kenya ($60m/year); employs >1 million 4) TL II drought nursery Katumani drought phenotyping Kabete training
  32. 32. IMPROVING NUTRITION AND HEALTH • Assessment of dietary practices, characteristics and prevalence of malnutrition in selected countries • Technologies evaluated for adaptation and utilization among vulnerable communities  Participatory variety evaluation and selection on demonstration gardens • Tested options for effective integration of beans into other local diets • Processing, preparation and post harvest value addition, • Information dissemination, awareness creation and promotion through a wide range of health partners
  33. 33. Improving Nutrition and Health • Improved nutrition and health status: • Improved cooking methods and dietary combinations (Central Uganda and Western Kenya) • National nutrition and Micronutrient intervention policies incorporate bio- fortification and agriculture as key intervention in combating malnutrition (RW, UG and KE) Future studies – Bioavailability, efficacy and effectiveness- H+ – Facilitate uptake and promote consumption (CIALCA, NGOs, health partners like AMREF) – Conduct more impact studies Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  34. 34. mg GAE/100g dm 0 200 400 600 800 1000 MEX 142 CAB 19 VCB 81013 Awash Melka Ranjonomby white Ituri Matata HRS 545 CAB 2 CAB 19 (F9) Maharagi Libi RWV 528 cream Roba 1 Nakaja light Gofta brown G 2331 TY 3396-12 Zebra Africa GLP X92 brown Ayenew mottled Selian 97 Umubano RWR 10 Vuninkingi (Not published) GLP 585 Decelaya GLP 24 Umubano K1 dark red ABA 136 Vuninkingi Mashai Red MCM 2001 39.33333333 Oba -1 Dose dependent effect of bean polyphenols on iron absorption GLP 2 AND 620 PVA 8 mottled dark red VNB 81010 BCR 4 Polyphenol content of beans from Eastern Tajeri Foman 2006 MLB 49/89A black
  35. 35. PABRA - REU United- cross technology and information thrust • Production • Environmental stress concerns • Nutrition and health Aims • To generate strategic lessons (which REU is cross-cut, which are technology specific) • To leverage out production and outreach synergies (e..g 4 thrusts in single regions– enhance integrated impact) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  36. 36. PABRA serves as integrating REU Umbrella Examples of Current Seed System-related projects • TLII (Kenya + Ethiopia) • McKnight (Malawi, Moz., S. Tanzania) • (HP+- DRC and Rwanda) • PABRA-funded directly – Uganda – DRC – Zambia – Zimbabwe Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  37. 37. RESEARCH: Seed Production Models being tested under TLII FOUNDATION/CERTIFIED SEED- production, via 1. NARS (produced Research Center) 2. Private Sector companies – producing directly 3. Private Sector- producing with contract farmers 4. Public sector with Contract farmers (who have ‘good track record’) 5. Trained Farmer groups (cowpea) 6. Small farmer individuals (select group) 7. Agricultural Universities (India) 8. Individual farmers’ fields ( breeder seed, under supervision- India ‘OTHER’ QUALITIES OF SEED PRODUCTION, via 1. Individual seed producers 2. CBSS, trained farmers groups 3. Schools 4. NGOs multiplying (ESA) 5. Federation of farmers groups. 6. PDKV- (university name ) model- individual farmers 7. Farmer associations- (have to be registered)
  38. 38. RESULTS: NEW PUBLIC –PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP • 28,000 packs sold (Sept 09- Jan 09) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  39. 39. Reaching End Users with seed of improved varieties • The WIP strategy –from • Estimated 8 million centralized distribution farmers (primary networks to decentralized beneficiaries) accessing networks new bean varieties as of • Building on varied 2008. organizational strengths • Diversifying categories of • Program catalyzed some beneficiaries 440 partnerships by 2008 • Engaging nutrition and health partners in agricultural extension Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  40. 40. PABRA’s Contribution towards impacts Increased Income and remarkable contributions to welfare changes for rural households  Beans transfer to immediate cash for rural households, and are a major source of household income for commercial farmers.  In Tanzania income from local varieties has increased by 59% over the last five years, average income from new varieties has grown by 197%, more than three times. ).  In Malawi, improved bean varieties accounted for 80% of the total volume of beans procured from farmers by local food wholesale traders.  In Uganda, surveys indicate that average annual household bean income has more than doubled since introduction of new varieties. New varieties now account for 67% of the annual household bean income. Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  41. 41. KNOWLEDGE SHARING • Manuals • Communication and awareness creation materials • PABRA Outlooks • Videos • Websites
  42. 42. PABRA’s NEW PHASE 2009 - 2013 Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  43. 43. PABRA FRAMEWORK 2009-2013 Project Outcomes Outputs Goal Resilience – Tools targeting technologies for specific stresses Improved varieties Mechanisms for resistance Improved nutrition Resilience Non Options for managing stress environments Tools to diagnose and understand acute stress varietal and health, constraints Access and gender utilization of Mineral rich bean varieties equality, micronutrient-rich Bean based food products Bio-availability, bio-efficacy, retention of food bean varieties and micronutrients and health qualities security, products incomes and Information on and linking to markets Opportunities of natural new and expanding Competitive and market demanded products Bean production for niche markets resource markets base for Seed systems and information Environment stress management products sustainable Micro nutrient dense bean based products Reaching end users livelihoods of Policy tools resource Knowledge Synergies, efficiencies, and accountability, in responding to demand in new areas poor women sharing and use, Knowledge base and men policy, M&E Policy and advocacy farmers Integration of women in technology dev, Gender Equality Integration of women in res and decision making in PABRA
  44. 44. AREA/THEMES (09 – 13) FOCUS AND TARGET Enhancing systems resilience so as to -Research and development lessen or prevent impact of interventions towards support of environmental /ecological stresses system resilience -Variety development (biotic and abiotic) - Climate change Improving nutrition and health of -Micronutrient rich varieties vulnerable communities through use of -Link Health and Agric developed (e.g. bean) products -Value addition & Food baskets Pro-poor market development -New market product S(incl varieties) -Organization , Value addition -Input use and access to credit Reaching the hard to reach faster and -Accelerate reach, Novel approaches more efficiently -Cross technology strategy -Numbers – 16.5 m (09-13) Building capacity building and knowledge -Institutionalization of knowledge, management for policy and advocacy skills and approaches (Institutional strengthening). -Policies -Knowledge management Gender Mainstreaming -Gender in technology development -Research and governance
  45. 45. Strengthening of Cross Cutting Areas  Gender Mainstreaming  HIV-AIDS Mainstreaming  Partnerships and Alliance  M& E  Niche markets
  46. 46. ALIGNING NEW AND ON-GOING EFFORTS TO NEW THE FRAMEWORK • Use of the Framework (integrate on-going efforts and activities) • Strengthening of National Levels Participation and contributions Communication and awareness of PABRA Involvement and contributions in PABRA activities Support in complementary resource mobilization Team development • Mobilization of resources To consider new and complementing opportunities
  47. 47. MAPPING COMPLEMENTARY PROJECTS/PRGMS IN PABRA DONORS AND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS Outcome KT AGRA BMGF NUTRIBE HP MKF MSI CRSP ASARE BMZ NGO’s GOV AN CA Ts Resilience 4 5 5 3 1 1 2 √ varieties Res Non- var 1 1 √ Nutrition 3 2 1 √ √ Markets √ 1 √ √ REU 5 5 2 3 √ √ Capacity 4 2 3 3 √ √ Gender √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Figures indicate number of countries
  48. 48. Budget from donors and estimated input / contributions by partners / government. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5   Donor/ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$   Contrib. CIDA 1,612,000 1,530,000 1,596,000 1,610,000 1,650000,   SDC 1.050,000 1.050,000 1.050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000   BMGF 800,000 800,000 ? ? AGRA 105,000 105,000 100’000 ?   VLIR 120,000 120,000 CIAT (HQ) 200,000 200,000 200,000 150,000 150,000   NARS (in 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000   Kind) NGOs (in 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000   kind) Total 10,887,000 10,805,000 9,946,000 9,810,000 9,850,000  
  49. 49. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATION Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  50. 50. Opportunities for Integration • Lessons from PABRA – Framework – Bean Projects in Africa (Internal and External) • TLII, HP+ (internal) • KIRKHOUSE, AGRA • Agro-biodiversity and TSBF (& LAC) • Cassava and TSBF (CIALCA) • PABRA (Outcome 1) and TSBF • PABRA and Afnet • Forages Initiating • CGIAR – ILRI and CIAT (initiated) – IITA and Cassava (relations improving) – Collective Action Initiatives – SSACP
  51. 51. Implementing Integration - How ? • Sharing agendas and identifying our comparative advantages • Increase participation in project program development and implementation • Joint positions (e.g. Nutrition, agro- enterprise, REU) • Common location & sharing of costs (e.g. Kigali, Arusha, Malawi) • Take advantage of common research sites Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  52. 52. CIALCA technologies and products Improving productivity Improved legume-cassava intercropping systems:  Using disease-resistant, high-yielding germplasm  Legume integration for system diversification  Adapted agronomy and spacing to maximize legume productivity  In situ biomass production through the legumes  Combining with micro-dose fertilizer application Productivity is increased based on the ISFM approach, integrating improved germplasm, efficient use of organic and inorganic nutrient inputs, and adaptation to local conditions and cropping practices.
  53. 53. Integration in Africa PROGRAM AREAS & LOCATION PROGRAMS FOR AG-BIO TSBF LAC INTEGRATION AFRICA 5 Thematic Areas or Projects √ Reaching the hard to reach √ Maximizing farmers’ benefit from markets √ Building eco-system resilience √ Linking agriculture to health √ Institutional strengthening
  54. 54. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  55. 55. Challenges • Synergy and integration platforms (within and others) • Evolving regional priorities • Balance between research and catalyzing • Communication & links between regions • Capacity development • Funding and other support Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  56. 56. Emerging Opportunities • New initiatives focusing on Africa (e.g. CP, BMGF, AGRA. SROs) • New Research Opportunities Climate change (gender +resilience under high stress) HIV/AIDS (mitigation) • Emerging and dynamic markets • Integration of nutrition in Agricultural Research • Regional Plan for collective Action Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
  57. 57. SSACP
  58. 58. Intensively cultivated slopes in the LK PLS
  59. 59. Lake Kivu PLS- MILESTONES STAGE I: INCEPTION - PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT • Launch- Kigali Rwanda by ASARECA (April 2005), • MoU between ASARECA and FARA (June 2005 ) • PLS-MC selected in July, 2005 • Appointment of Lead Institutions consortium August 2005 • Validation exercise (October 2005), • EU Review Mission Entry points selected (Kigali workshop) #1: More food products and better nutrition at reduced cost and minimal degradation of the natural resource base; #2: Beneficial conservation and sustainable use of natural resources #3: Wealth creation through agro-enterprise diversification and improved market access.
  60. 60. STAGE II: PROJECT INTEGRATION DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON GOALS – Long-term: – Improved food and nutrition security, – Increased household incomes, – Improved quality of the PLS natural resource base – Medium-term (inter alia): – An agricultural innovation platform model – Increased resource productivity – Behavioural changes among actors along the value chain – Increased diversification of agricultural and other natural resource- based enterprises
  61. 61. Research Questions Which options enhance and/or stabilize productivity while ensuring sustainable NRM under different bio- Under what conditions does improved access to physical and socio-economic conditions ? How can diverse rural households and their support and competitiveness of smallholder farmers in institutions be empowered to bemarkets enhance investment into and output pro-active members of inputproductivity enhancing technologies and practices A Which value chains?NRM? ensure conservation of the NR base? Productivity D Under what conditions do commodity value chains lead to Sustainable What NRM options and strategies facilitate farmers improved NRM productivity and competitiveness of alternative and other actors to effectively respond to market Policies enterprises? DEF opportunities such as change in seasonal F What are the requisite policies and institutions needed to What market demands andto create are required to for consumer preferences institutional innovations new income sources, enable integrated NRM differentiated products increase productivity and competitiveness of smallholder increased productivity as well as encourage investments in C Eproducers? B conservation? Efficient markets What trade, value addition and food security policies enhance the efficiency of agricultural markets and make them work better for the small farmers?
  62. 62. Innovation Platforms- Learning alliances RC/V = Rural Policy makers Extension Community/Village Micro-credit institutions /village () Education Researchers RC/V Transporters Farmer association with a facilitating Farmer function group Water/irrigation RC/V Agro-processor Input / output marketers ICT providers Health providers
  63. 63. STAGE III: SC RECOMMENDED NEW QUESTIONS Questions – Does the IAR4D concept work and can it generate deliverable international and regional public goods for the end users? – Does the IAR4D framework deliver more benefits to end users than conventional approaches? – How sustainable and usable is the IAR4D approach outside the test environment (i.e. issues of scaling out for broader impact)? Action taken Development and harmonization of a revised integrated programme framework, workplan and budgets.
  64. 64. STAGE IV: IMPLEMENTATION  Finalize the integration process  Develop a research action plan and strategy for Proof of Concept of IAR4D (understand and consolidate the process based) • Design • Sites • Integration among projects, within site and between sites
  65. 65. 2. TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS / PROGRESS • Specific sites (Action & Counterfactual) selected • Stakeholder analysis and mapping • Baseline studies (Plot, Household, Village characterization, Market surveys) conducted • Data collection & Entry • Data management training • 7 IP initiated
  66. 66. ACTION & COUNTERFACTUAL SITES Country Market accessibility Good Poor Uganda Chahi Bufundi Rwanda Gataraga Mudende Rwerere DRC Muvunyi- Kisigari Shanga
  67. 67. Categories of stakeholders in Bufundi Stake holder No. of No. of category groups linkages 1. Private sector 5 15 2. Farmer 4 30 3. Extension 4 15 4. Policy makers 2 5 5. Researchers 1 3 6. NGO 1 4
  68. 68. CHALLENGES TECHNICAL • Long planning Process • Evolving agenda • Not been easy converting 3 to 1 (conceptually and practically) • Technical adaptations and harmonization of the three entry points in the proof of concepts • Maintaining partners engagement
  69. 69. CHALLENGES ADMINSTRATION • Adapting budgets in the one project approach • Changes in TF leaderships (1 and 3) • Synchrony in reporting