COMESA-CCAFS Malawi Beating Famine: CSA Session
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•527 views
This document discusses regional climate-smart agriculture preparedness in East and Southern Africa. National climate-smart agriculture planning processes are ongoing in several countries in the region, facilitated by various organizations. The planning process typically involves three stages: visioning to determine goals, plan development, and national validation. The resulting country climate-smart agriculture program plans include sections on productivity, resilience, mitigation co-benefits, coordination, financing, and monitoring. Recommendations for the planning process include ensuring government support, using creative facilitation to encourage innovative thinking, and addressing the lack of evidence within constrained timelines.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to COMESA-CCAFS Malawi Beating Famine: CSA Session
Similar to COMESA-CCAFS Malawi Beating Famine: CSA Session (20)
More from FMNR Hub
More from FMNR Hub (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
COMESA-CCAFS Malawi Beating Famine: CSA Session
- 1. Regional Climate-Smart Agriculture Preparedness in East & Southern AfricaGeorge Wamukoya James Kinyangi Todd Rosenstock Evan Girvetz Caitlin Corner-Dolloff Christine Lamanna others on the CGIAR- CCAFS team Representatives from: Namibia, Botswana, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania
- 2. Policy, partnerships, and financing Photo: CCAFS CSA is gaining momentum in Africa
- 3. Develop Country CSA [Response] Plans National CSA Planning Processes – Ongoing ACSAA COMESA/CSAP USAID/ECOWAS WorldBank PACCA Kenya Uganda Tanzania Namibia Botswana
- 4. Stage 3: National validation Stage 2: Plan development Stage 1: Visioning Where we are? Where do we want to go? Feedback and revision January June Iterative program design Government driven process supported by other stakeholder groups
- 5. Country CSA Programme I. Preface by MoA & MoE II. Executive Summary III. Situation Analysis IV. Vision & Objectives V. Results Area 1: Productivity VI. Results Area 2: Resilience VII.Results Area 3: Mitigation co-benefits VIII.Coordination IX. Financing X. Monitoring, reporting & verification
- 6. Recommendation 1: Ensure an ‘authorizing environment’ for planning processes Challenge: Integrate diverse & rep. opinions - Government (MoA, MoE, Finance, Met, etc.) - NGOs - Researchers - Farmer groups - Private sector
- 7. Recommendation 2: Develop creatively facilitated process eliciting innovative thinking Challenge: Thinking big and broad - Programs not projects - Range of options
- 8. Lesson 3: Timelines challenge the ability to develop evidence-based planning Challenge: Lack of evidence base - Avoiding wish lists - Setting priorities
- 9. ‘CSA-PLAN’
Editor's Notes
- CSA is catching on like wildfire and becoming the hallmark for policies and programs. For example: GASCA: 500 million farmers NEPAD: 25 million farmers Reaching these types of figures would require mobilization of a massive scientific and development effort Development activities are based on a fundamental assumption that there is a significant scientific basis of CSA. That is there there is a basis for improved practices and That there is a basis for synergies among the three components of CSA We are attempting to answer that question: What is the scientific basis for CSA?
- Over the past year, ICRAF and CCAFS have tried to organize the available information on CSA by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. We looked at approximately 65 field level practices and 15 indicators of performance. A practice here is from the farmers perspective (something he or she would implement on their farm). What that means is we are looking at 65 practices at the level of ‘leguminous intercropped agroforestry’ not aggregate practices like agroforestry itself. as leguminous intercropped will have a much different impact than border planting with timber species. 1. We searched Web of Science with general and discpline oriented keywords and returned 144,000 possible papers. 2. Abstracts and titles were then reviewed against inclusion criteria that included things such as taking place in a developing country, a baseline/control and improved practice and then we had 16,254 candidate papers. Papers were screened by person with at least an MS in a relevant field and some were in the middle of PHD 3. We then reviewed the full text of these papers to be sure they met the criteria and we believe there will be about 6100 papers (there are about 3000 papers left to screen that we are having trouble getting access to). We have extracted data from 1,200 of these papers so far and QA/QC only 150 of those. Extrapolations based on our current rate of data inclusion, we expect the final database to be approximately 120,000 disappoints.