Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byICARDA
THEME – 5 FINDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
This document summarizes findings from a study that assessed the demand and supply of agricultural innovations in Africa to help bridge the gap between research and adoption. The study collected data from farmer organizations, intermediaries, and International Agricultural Research Centers on key crops, livestock and trees. It found that while many innovations addressed major needs like drought-resistant seed, many also required substantial investment for adoption. Face-to-face methods were most used to share innovations, while affordability and access remained challenges, especially for resource-poor farmers. The study provided some matching cases of innovations addressing needs and concluded that while research centers were addressing some key issues, improved accessibility and extension support were still needed.
More Related Content
Similar to THEME – 5 FINDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
THEME – 5 FINDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
- 1. FINDINGS FOR THEASSESSMENT OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society Authors: Tom Apina¹Si Bennasseur Alaoui, Ph.D², Lennart Woltering³, Lorenz Bachmann Phd³,Jean Nyemba, Brigid Letty International Workshop on “Applied Mathematics and Omics Technologies for Discovering Biodiversity and Genetic Resources for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation to Sustain Agriculture in Drylands” Rabat - Morocco, 24-27 June 2014
- 2. OUTLINE INTRODUCTION –SUSTAINET EA ITAACC PROGRAMME COMPONENTS ASSESSMENT – COMPONENT B Objectives METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK DEMAND AND SUPPLY – CROPS,LIVESTOCK EXAMPLES OF MATCHES CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 3. INTRODUCTION Sustainable Agriculture forHealthy Environment and Food Secure Society •Non- governmental organization promoting sustainable agricultural practices in East and Horns of Africa. •We serve a network of 1.5M smallholder farmers either directly or through more than 200 CBO/NGOs who are our members.
- 4. ABOUT ITAACC The The“Innovation Transfer into Agriculture – Adaptation to Climate Change (ITAACC)”- program is being implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of BMZ (04/2013-03/2018). It aims at bridging the gap between innovations developed at CGIAR, ICIPE and AVRDC) and their implementation on the ground by farmers and actors representing farmers 4 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 5. 27.06.2014 COMPONENTS Success factors– Project Components Assessment of Demand and Supply of agricultural innovation Financing projects up to 2 Mio € in total Business, NGOs, GIZ, Donors, et al. IARC All Actors / Partners Lessons learnt Knowledge transfer platform A B D C Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 6. STUDY OBJECTIVE Development andapplication of a method to assess the demand-supply match for agricultural innovations in Africa 7 Demand- expressed by farmer organisations Supply- by CGIAR, AVRDC and icipe Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 7. METHODOLOGY Defining theneeds for agricultural innovations of more than a billion farmers in Africa, all with their specific resource base and climate is impossible. Similarly, the 17 IARC have produced an overwhelming amount of research findings since they started work in the 1960s thus it was critical from the onset to define the scope and limitations of the study. The Concept
- 8. Other donors ITAACC- DemandSupply match for agricultural innovations Smallholder farmers Farmer organisations (aggregated demand) GIZ Agr.program s PPP NGOs, donors and networks Public sector Ext. serv. CGIAR 15 centers CRPs AVRDC ICIPE IARC BMZ NARS Universities Private sector other Demandfor innovations Supplyof innovations Private sector VC actors 9
- 9. SCOPE – COUNTRYSELECTION - 17 countries were selected based on presence IARC center and BMZ funded projects (GIZ/BEAF) 10 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society East Africa Southern Africa West Africa North Africa Kenya South Africa Cameroon Morocco Ethiopia Zimbabwe Mali Tunisia Uganda Zambia Benin Tanzania Mozambique Ghana Rwanda Malawi Burkina Faso Niger
- 10. COMMODITY SELECTION Targeted majorcommodities in crop, livestock and (agro)forestry sector (FAOStat) per Agro- Ecological Zone (AEZ) to increase relevance of findings between regions
- 11. METHODOLOGY: DATA COLLECTION 12 SampleQuestions Responses FO 152 75 11.400 GIZ/NGO 141 53 7.473 Strategic IARC 24 34 816 Scientists 94 50 4.700 Sum 411 212 24.389 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 12. METHODOLOGY- WORKSHOPS ITAACC- Demand Supplymatch for agricultural innovations 13 Southern Africa, February 2014- 30 participants West and North Africa, March 2014- 36 participants International, Feldafing, November 2013- 50 participants International, Nairobi, May 2014- 75 participants
- 13. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK Main researchtheme Hypothesis Needs for innovations H01. IARCs are addressing key needs of farmers Adoption of innovations H02. Innovations are affordable for farmers H03. Farmers and scientists share similar views on key criteria for design/adoption of innovations H04. Gender equity is an important criteria for actors in the innovation system H05. Farmers are the major stakeholder in the design and implementation of IARCs’ research Information exchange H06. The ways information on innovations is shared matches the requirements of farmers Extension H07. Farmers rate advisory services they receive as adequate H08. Effective linkages exist between different actors in the innovation system H09. IARCS innovations have been up-scaled adequately Climate change H10. Climate change is having an impact on smallholder farming systems and actors are successfully adapting the production systems to the changes Other H11. Research results financed by BMZ in the past are found readily among current top five innovations of IARCs H12. Research at the IARC is aligned with overall international development goals Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 14. CROPS: DEMAND ANDSUPPLY 15 CROPS FO # Interm. # IARC # Maize 41 40 17 Cassava 10 19 6 Potato 10 12 3 Rice 9 10 3 Sorghum 8 13 8 Beans dry 8 6 7 Groundnuts 8 5 7 Banana/plantain 8 7 4 Onion 7 9 3 Cowpea 6 3 9 Tomatoes 6 11 5 Soybean 5 7 9 Cabbages 5 11 3 Millet 4 5 6 Sweet potato 2 8 3 Taro and yams 1 2 3 Pulses 2 2 8 Wheat, barley and teff 7 14 14 Other vegetables 11 5 4 Other specify 25 24 15 • Maize was the most frequently mentioned crop – with more spread in terms of crop options among IARCs - Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 15. LIVESTOCK, TREES ANDOTHER 16 LIVESTOCK FO # Interm. # IARC # Cattle 16 17 11 Dairy cattle 13 15 4 Goats 8 12 6 Sheep 7 10 3 Poultry 6 16 2 Dairy goats 2 4 0 Pigs 2 1 2 Rabbits 1 1 0 Camel 0 4 1 Fish in natural waters 0 1 2 Aquaculture 0 0 2 Other specify 8 3 7 TREES AND OTHER FO # Interm. # IARC # Mango 8 3 3 Moringa 3 4 2 Fodder crops 3 na na Olive 2 6 1 Cashew nut 2 1 Citrus 1 1 1 Pawpaw 1 1 Leucaena 1 2 Pigeon pea 2 1 Grevellia 1 1 Gliricidia sepium 4 Neem 1 1 Faidherbia albida 4 Shea butter 1 1 Other specify 18 17 13 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 16. MAIZE: PROBLEM CODING 17 Maizechallenges FO% Interm. % IARC % Access to and quality of seed 16% 14% 5% Marketing 10% 8% 5% Access to credit or finance / high production costs 9% 5% 5% Post harvest processing or storage 8% 8% 5% Tools, machinery and irrigation equipment 8% 3% 2% Drought, flood, any climate related problem 6% 8% 5% Institutional / regulatory / policy issues 6% 12% 2% Pest and diseases (including rodents, animals) 5% 6% 14% Access to, quality and use of fertilizer 4% 3% 5% Land and water availability, natural resources 4% 4% 2% Cultivation practices and harvesting 2% 3% 7% Poor soil fertility 1% 3% 10% Low yields and poor quality 1% 3% 14% Pest and diseases are a very big issue in East Africa (MLN) but not so much in other regions Few maize varieties are drought resistant- farmers shif to more drought resistant crops (sorghum, millet, cassava, sweet potato, etc.) Food aid and input support programs lead to production and market distortions Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 21. MATCHING CASES Seeds forneeds Bioversity International, promoted in East Africa Crops: barley, durum wheat sorghum, cowpea, pigeon pea and common beans. Access to seed Adapted seed for various farming conditions Drought resistance Good yield with low inputs Crowd sourcing involves thousands of farmers in seed testing. Old varieties of gene banks are taken back to farmers’ fields and compared with few modern varieties. Farmers test several varieties and retain the best mix of varieties. The testing takes place in farmer fields on hundreds of locations. The concept is based on seed sharing. Thus, the approach depends less on a formal seed sector to multiply seed. Research is still ongoing on various issues. Seed exchange across country borders? Further scaling-up after research? 22 A Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 22. SUPPLY OF INNOVATIONS ITAACC-Demand Supply match for agricultural innovations 23 0% 10% 20% 30% Development of improved varieties Development of technology (not varieties) Cultivation methods (CA, agroforestry,… Promotion of using specific crop/variety Information tools/equipment (analysis) Improve policies/institutions Value addition (processing, storage) pest and disease management Improved service to farmers Access to inputs and markets Knowledge systems Innovation platforms and PPP Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 23. CHARACTERISING INNOVATIONS 24 Where areyour FO members located / Which AEZ does your innovation target? Agro-ecological zone Farmer orgs % Intermediarie s % IARCs % Arid 10% 11% 1% Semi arid 36% 37% 61% Sub humid 40% 42% 31% Humid 14% 10% 7% • Major agro ecological zones are rather well covered • More marginal zones (arid areas) are less well covered Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 24. CHARACTERISING INNOVATIONS Yield ofIARC innovation in relation to major existing technology in the country Category Percentage Significantly lower (-30%) 0% Lower (-15%) 1% Equal (+- 5%) 13% Higher (+15%) 42% Much higher (+30%) 37% No information 8% 25 • The largest proportion of innovations (42%) were said to produce a moderate yield increase (+ 15%) • About a third of innovations were said to produce larger yield increases (>=30%) • 13% of innovations do not have yield advantage – for 8% of innovations there was no information on yield levels available. Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 25. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTNEEDED FOR ADOPTION OF INNOVATION BY BENEFICIARIES (EURO) Caution on this data is required. Few crop innovations (14%) are very cheap 11-28% of innovations are in the range of 50-100 Euro. 32-45% of innovations require more than 100 Euro. For these, adoption without credit or subsidies appears difficult More social organization solutions will be required: sharing arrangements, cooperatives, micro credits, etc. 26 Investment range - Euro Crops # Livestock # Trees and others # <10 8 5 4 10-50 17 4 2 51-100 6 5 3 101-400 12 5 4 201- 400 6 2 2 >401 9 3 4 No info. 16 4 1 Total 61 25 18 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 26. AFFORDABILITY OF INNOVATIONS Veryresource poor Well resourced Resource status Farmer needs Innovation supply No. of suitable innovations Only about 1/3 of the top innovations appear to be affordable for very resource poor farmers Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 27. CONCLUSIONS H1: IARCSARE ADDRESSING KEY NEEDS OF FARMERS Hypothesis 1 is partially confirmed About one third of innovations are highly affordable. Others would require projects or subsidies Access to innovations is very limited (via NARS) Some problems are outside the mandate of centers Some problems require regular extension support Some require Government intervention (e.g. quality control of seed marketed) Most innovations need to be made more accessible to farmers. 28 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 28. INFORMATION EXCHANGE (H6) ITAACC-Demand Supply match for agricultural innovations 29 Means of dissemination FO (%) Intermed. (%) IARC (%) Face-to-face Farmer training 86 83 74 Demonstrations 78 80 76 Farmers days / field days 73 77 66 Farmer to farmer exchanges 61 66 52 Farmer leaders 56 n.a. n.a. Farmer to farmer 25 n.a. n.a. Media Radio 47 52 41 TV 35 23 31 Internet 30 18 45 Mobile phone applications 21 14 7 DVD 8 19 15 Written material Farmer leaflets / handouts 46 55 48 Publications in local language 33 28 45 Magazines / newspapers 31 23 34 Research Journals n.a. 12 59 Manuals n.a. 42 52 n= 1000 824 632 Facilitated face-to-face interactions are popular but costly Scientist skeptical of use of apps How should innovations be promoted to farmers? How do you promote your innovation Farmer illiteracy poses a challenge
- 29. QUALITY OF SERVICESFROM…. 30 NGO NAES NARS Private sector Opinion of... FO good neutral Very poor Intermed. neutral neutral good -Quality of services generally good, but you must be lucky to get support in your location, or for sufficient time -Capacity building is appreciated -Balance support vs dependency -Poor coordination among NGOs (duplications). Lack of resources/logistics to provide services to farmers. Knowledgeable about staple crops, not on cash crops. Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 30. OPINIONS ON SERVICESOF PRIVATE SECTOR Mostly on input suppliers, seed companies FO rate service „very poor“, itermed. „Good“. ITAACC- Demand Supply match for agricultural innovations 31 „They are only there for their own benefit, they don‘t help the farmers“ Farmers Union Mozambique 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Exploiting farmers Inaccessible/ poor presence Single product focus only Quality of services high Quality of services low FO Interm. Ignoring farming system reality may result in conflicting messages of different actors Big mistrust due to bad experience with seed adultration, market monopolies, fake inputs, etc. good after-sale services are mentioned. Good extension and training capacities, but don‘t use that enough yet
- 31. STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSOF IARC ACCORDING TO… ITA ACC - Dem and Sup ply mat ch for agri cult 32 Strength Weakness FO 25% approach 19% training 13% professional 32% approach does not meets farmer needs 14% poor/no funding to Fos 14% poor facilitator of partnerships Intermediaries 17% technologies 13% professional 10% approach 10% sharing 9% networking 24% poorly accessible 19% approach does not meet farmer needs 16% Poor partner (no mutual respect- and poor feedback on collected data) „IARC have entry points to international knowledge/ experience, but I am not getting connected“ „focus on research methodology rather than impact“, or „focus on donor need, rather than farmer need“ Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 32. IARC, RATE YOURCOLLABORATION WITH….. 33 NARS NAES NGO PS Very poor - - 0% 13% 5% 4% Poor - 9% 17% 5% 13% Medium 30% 26% 41% 43% Good + 26% 26% 36% 30% Very good + + 35% 17% 14% 9% Total (n=) 23 23 22 23 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 33. IARC COLLABORATION WITHNGO AND PS 34 “They are slowly understanding that research can benefit them, and PS can quickly upscale 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Good partner Poor partner Lack adequate resources Approach meets farmer needs High quality standards/ competent Approach does not meet farmer needs Poor quality standards and… Hardly any cooperation NGO Private Sector „They take research result out of context and dont feedback findings/observations to research. “ „ NGOs don’t have flexible budgets, making it difficult to collaborate“ Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 34. HYPOTHESIS 8- CONCLUSION H8:Effective linkages exist between different actors in the innovation system No, there is a lot of room for improvement. The approach of IARC towards working with farmers is more often seen as a weakness than a strength Actors very negative about NAES, generally positive about NGOs and NARS (despite lack of resources) and IARC are getting used to working with private sector Farmers mistrust private sector 35 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 35. UPSCALING OF IARCINNOVATIONS Only 22% of innovations have reached out to more than 50 000 farmers so far For about 1/3 of top innovations, no data on adoption was available. 36 Adoption range #households # % 0 .. 100 7 11% 101 .. 500 9 14% 501 .. 1000 8 13% 1001 .. 5000 13 20% 5001 .. 20000 9 14% 20001 .. 50000 4 6% >50001 14 22% Total 64 Missing answers 30 IARC major bottleneck to better uptake of innovations: •IARC poor approach to up-scaling and collaboration with farmers and partners, •poor design of innovations – more focus on scientific correctness than means of effectice delivery Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 36. UPSCALING OF IARCINNOVATIONS 37 Evaluation criteria of scientists Responses Peer reviewed publications 91% Acquisition of funds 70% Quality of the scientific work delivered 65% Perceived impact of the research 57% Novelty of the research 44% Engagement with other actors of the value chain 30% Engagement with farmers 13% Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 37. CLIMATE CHANGE Largemajority observe increased incidences of droughts and erratic rainfall 84-98% of respondents claim to have experienced productivity loss due to climate change Coping mechanisms: 38 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Improve water use (irrigation, water… Improved cultivation practices… Improving current variety Diversification of production Other (early warning, insurance,… No coping strategy even though… Planting trees (agro-forestry… FO Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 38. CONCLUSIONS even thougha large number of research outputs match with the farmer needs, the most important problems of farmers are not met by research. This is access to good and affordable inputs and services (seeds, planting materials, advice, etc) Most innovations focus on improving traits of crop varieties. More innovations should aim at improving the marketability of commodities there is considerable room to improve trust, understanding and true partnerships among key actors in the innovation system 39 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 39. RECOMMENDATIONS If IARCwant to reach impact, poor access to inputs and services needs to be tackled: Research center are not single most important driver for agric innovations Urgent need to improve communication and collaboration between all stakeholders! ITAACC advocates for a shift from linear thinking (research > extension > farmer) towards innovation system thinking focus on on interaction between diverse actors as key to changing agricultural practices Go beyond farmer participation towards farmer leadership of innovation processes 40 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 40. RECOMMENDATIONS CONT.............. Pull throughthe CGIAR reforms but don‘t expect that scientist become BBC overnight (Bridge R&D, Broker of partnerships and Catalyst for change) Provoke centers to change rewarding system Motivate research centers to value adaptive research more 41 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 41. RECOMMENDATIONS ON USEOF METHODOLOGY Method is useful learning tool for broad range of stakeholders and it can influence public spending Allows for „flagging“ of issues and a basis for in-depth discussions Shows value of needs assessment, but does not replace needs assessments for research/development projects Due to scope of assessment it is probably most valuable to validate functioning of the innovation system every 5-10 years 42 Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 42. Sustainable Agriculture forHealthy Environment and Food Secure Society STUDY TEAM LORENZ LENNART TOM BENNASSER JEAN BRIGID
- 43. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Sustainable Agriculture forHealthy Environment and Food Secure Society
- 44.