FAO’s WORK ON TRANSIT ION FROM CRISIS TO DEVELOPMENT

Good practices for food and nutrition security

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 2012

FAO’s WORK ON TRANSIT ION FROM CRISIS TO DEVELOPMENT

Good practices for food and nutrition security

Photographs courtesy of:

FAO/Giulio Napolitano - cover, pages 14 and 18; FAO/Guatemala Team - cover, pages 20 and 24;FAO/Farooq Naeem - cover, pages 27, 30 and 33; FAO/Caroline Thomas - cover and page 36;FAO/Dervla Cleary - pages 44 and 48; FAO/Caroline Hungwe - pages 51 and 55;FAO/Karsto Kwazira - cover.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2012

3

Table of Contents

Aknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

The international context of transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Good practices and main findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Seed fairs in Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Farmer Field Schools in Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Integrated community-based interventions in Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Community-based sytems of maize storage in Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Hazard, Livelihood and Vulnerability Baseline in Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Detailed Livelihoods Assessment: A tool for national recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

On-farm watercourse rehabilitation through Cash for Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

“Smallholder Commercialization Programme” (SCP) in Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Upscaling and promotion of Conservation Agriculture (CA) in Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Commercialization of egg production in the smallholder sector of Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Promoting input/output marketing through contract farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

E-vouchers for agricultural inputs in Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Tables & Annexes

Table 1: Summary of good practices � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �13

Table 2: Beneficiary households of seed fairs in Burundi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �17

Table 3: Gender distribution within the ABC members � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �39

Graph 1: Number of ABCs in Sierra Leone � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �40

Graph 2: Constraints at ABC level � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �40

4

Aknowledgements

The present document is the result of a joint effort promoted by the Team for Strategic Objective I – Organizational Result 3 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), co-led by the Emergency and Rehabilitation Division and the Policy and Programme Development Support Division. The good practices contained in this document have been compiled by FAO Country teams in consultation with the authors of this document. These good practices have been collected on the basis of the template developed by the FAO Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension. The elaboration of this document was made possible with the overall guidance of Jeff Tschirley, Alex Jones and Nicholas Crawford. Lucia Palombi is the coordinating author of the document. The authors wish to thank FAO staff in the FAO Representations and Emergency Rehabilitation and Coordination Units of Burundi, Guatemala, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe as well as FAO staff in Headquarters for welcoming this initiative and being instrumental in identifying and documenting the good practices showcased in this document.

5

AcronymsAGS Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries DivisionAGP Plant Production and Protection DivisionCA Conservation AgricultureCFW Cash for WorkCOCODE Community Development CouncilsCPF Country Programme Framework DFID Department for International DevelopmentDLA Detailed Livelihood Assessment DNA Damage Need Assessment DRM Disaster Risk ManagementDRR Disaster Risk ReductionECHO European Community Humanitarian Aid DepartmentEMPRES Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and DiseasesERCU Emergency Rehabilitation and Coordination UnitFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFAOR FAO RepresentativeFFS Farmers Field SchoolsFID Fisheries and Aquaculture DepartmentFPMIS Field Programme Management Information SystemHIV Human Immunodeficiency VirusHL Hazard, Livelihood and VulnerabilityIASC Inter-Agency Standing CommitteeIDP Internal Displaced Persons IFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentILO International Labor Organization LAT Livelihoods Assessment ToolkitLEGS Livestock Emergency GuidelinesMAGA Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Food M&E Monitoring and EvaluationNGOs Non Governmental Organizations NDMA National Disaster Management AuthorityOCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOEK Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and ExtensionPBC United Nations Peacebuilding CommissionSEAGA Socio-Economic and Gender AnalysisSCP Smallholder Commercialization ProgrammeSESAN National Food Security Secretariat TCE Emergency and Rehabilitation DivisionTCI Investment CenterTCP Technical Cooperation ProjectTCS Policy and Programme Development Support DivisionUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNDG United Nations Development GroupUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeWB World BankWFP World Food ProgramWHO World Health OrganizationWUA Water Users Association

6

Executive SummaryThis publication is the result of an initiative aimed at highlighting FAO’s comparative advantage on transition and determining a list of potential programme options for transition interventions. Transition interventions at FAO involve addressing post-crisis acute needs and simultaneously contributing to development processes in order to reduce vulnerability and exposure to risk and to strengthen resilience to food and agricultural threats and emergencies. Transition involves moving from life-sustaining activities to addressing institutional capacity, natural resource management, and productive asset imbalances to long-term entitlements and sustainability. Transition activities are long term, are conducted in partnership with governments and institutions, focus on a wide range of livelihood options, and build on local coping mechanisms. As a humanitarian and development agency, FAO has substantial programmatic presence in the full spectrum of interventions, from integrated preparedness and rapid response in emergencies, through rehabilitation and development programmes. Therefore, the Organization has a comparative advantage in facilitating the complex process of transitions in the agricultural sectors.

Through Strategic Objective I (SO I) “Improved preparedness for, and effective response to, food and agricultural threats and emergencies” FAO has adopted the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) approach as a corporate priority. SO I is based on the three pillars of DRM: 1) Disaster risk reduction (DRR) - preparedness, prevention and mitigation - Organizational Result I 01; 2) Emergency response and rehabilitation – Organizational Result I 02; Transition to development – Organizational Result I 03. This document is the result of work promoted by the SO I OR3 team, co-led by the Emergency and Rehabilitation Division and the Policy and Programme Development Support Division and composed by: the Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division (AGS), the Plant production and protection Division (AGP), the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (FID), the Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension (OEK) and the Investment Center (TCI). Additional comments were also provided by other members of the SO I team, the Office of Evaluation (OED) and the Global Food Security Cluster.

The good practices have been compiled by FAO Country teams in consultation with the authors of this document. The desk studies and related good practices have followed the template developed by the Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension (OEK) to guide FAO staff when identifying and capturing good practices. All the studies have striven to include a gender analysis of activities, including data on positive/negative impacts of FAO interventions. The focus countries for these case studies are: Burundi, Guatemala, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. These good practices focus on rehabilitation/recovery activities in countries in post-crisis transition settings, affected by conflict and/or natural disasters, and/or transboundary animal and plant diseases and/or economic emergency.

The main elements of successful transitional programming identified in this document are the following: 1) national ownership: national ownership should be enhanced through extensive stakeholder consultation and public participation; 2) integration of DRR activities: transition should have a direct link with the main elements of DRR, which are preparedness, prevention and mitigation; 3) capacity development: one of the main purposes of transition activities is to strengthen the capacities of governments and institutions; 4) inclusive planning: planning should be based on a thorough understanding of the context through participatory approaches (e.g. livelihoods assessments) and particular attention should be paid to including women and marginalized groups; 5) market-based interventions: interventions should promote access to agricultural inputs while enhancing innovative approaches to restore and support local markets.

Overall this document constitutes a first attempt to showcase FAO’s work on transition. Additional focus countries could be considered in a second phase of this initiative. Simultaneously sector-based case studies could lead to the identification of additional programme options for transition. Finally a specific focus on funding tools could lead to the analysis of different ways utilised by FAO of transitioning from humanitarian to developmental funding and programming modalities.

7

IntroductionFAO defines ‘transition’ as a process of linking immediate objectives (meeting the immediate needs of the disaster/shock-affected population through emergency operations) to medium and long term development objectives. Transition, therefore, begins in the immediate aftermath of a shock. It implies a shift away from humanitarian response to an approach led by national actors that includes planning and implementation of recovery initiatives, reconciliation and peace consolidation. Post-crisis transition normally takes place in a highly complex environment characterized by humanitarian and long term needs and the presence of a wide range of international and national actors working in a challenging coordination environment. Transition interventions involve addressing post-crisis acute needs and simultaneously contributing to development processes in order to reduce vulnerability and exposure to risk.

The ultimate goal of this initiative is to highlight FAO’s comparative advantage on transition and to determine a list of potential programme options for transition interventions. The methodology consisted of three main steps: 1) a mapping of projects in FPMIS and a review of FAO evaluations related to the selected focus countries as well as FAO guidelines and tools to identify specific recommendations on recovery, rehabilitation and transition interventions; 2) consultations with FAO colleagues in headquarters and decentralized offices in order to discuss current issues related to transition and 3) the elaboration of desk studies on selected focus countries.

The proposed countries for the case studies are: Burundi, Guatemala, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. These countries have been selected after consultation with key colleagues in FAO operational and technical units and a preliminary desk review of projects in FPMIS as they are diversified by type of crisis and hazards, geographical location and FAO interventions. The focus is on rehabilitation/recovery activities in countries in post-crisis transition settings, affected by conflict and/or natural disasters (sudden- and slow-onset), and/or transboundary animal and plant diseases and/or economic emergency (soaring food prices). Among the sample countries the majority are countries in protracted crisis , which are countries characterized by recurrent natural disasters and/or conflict, longevity of food crises1, breakdown of livelihoods and insufficient institutional capacity to react to the crises. Consideration has been given to the linkages, harmonization and possible integration of DRM-based Plans of Action and Country Programme Frameworks (CPF). All the studies have included a gender analysis of activities, including data on positive/negative impacts of FAO interventions.

The main criteria for the selection of good practice examples are the following2: • interventions (project/programme) meet the immediate needs of the affected population and are

in support of national strategy and policy in the sector;• emergency/rehabilitation interventions are couched in existing and planned national institutions and

develop national capacity in these institutions where needed;• a clear exit strategy; • building resilience and reducing risk;• successful transition requires building household, community and institutional resilience and reducing

future risks and vulnerabilities to disasters; and• national ownership.

The good practices showcased in this document have been compiled by FAO Country teams in consultation with the coordinating author of this document.

1 SOFI 2010; http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi-2010/en/ According to SOFI 2010 Improving food security in protracted crises requires going beyond short-term responses in order to protect and promote people’s livelihoods over the longer term. Appropriate responses must also recognize the different impacts of protracted crises on men and women. Supporting institutions is key to addressing protracted crises. Local institutions, in particular, can help address food security problems in protracted crises, but they are often ignored by external actors.

2 These criteria have been identified as main characteristics of a successful transition in section “What constitutes a successful transition?” in the OR3 Transition Note.

8

The international context of transitionTransitions are rarely linear, with a clear progression from conflict or natural disaster towards recovery and development. Rather than continuous, transitions are frequently contiguous, with various stages of relief, early recovery, reconstruction and development work ongoing simultaneously in different areas of the same country. At present humanitarian and development activities are supported by the international community through largely separate operational, coordination and funding entities, for example:

• IASC/Cluster3 System versus –UN Country Team sectoral working groups.• OCHA-supported Humanitarian Coordinator versus UNDG-supported Resident Coordinator.• Separate donor country have funding arms for humanitarian and development activities, in some

cases reporting to different line ministries.• Joint humanitiarian programming under the Consolidated Appeal Process; post-conflict or post-

disaster recovery frameworks (e.g., PCNA or PDNA); and UNDAFs for the UN development programming.

A variety of partnerships, directions, programming and funding instruments and initiatives have been developed to address the specific challenges these environments give rise to. Among these are:

• The Busan Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness and the New Deal The New Deal was negotiated in close consultation with the g7+ members, which are the nations and regions farthest from reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and seek to provide a fragile state perspective on fragility in order to work with donors to improve the effectiveness of their assistance and help the membership to transition out of fragility4 .The New Deal has now been endorsed by more than 40 countries as well as several international organizations, including the UNDG: it sets out a framework for recipient and donor countries alike aimed at enabling progress towards development goals in fragile and conflict-affected states. It calls for the negotiation and implementation of country-specific transition “compacts”, mutual agreements between national and international partners that identify national peace and statebuilding priorities and that define how, and from what instruments, implementation of those priorities will be financed and monitored. The New Deal is not a UN-driven process. The primary responsibility rests with the governments of conflict-affected and fragile states. The International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, composed of the g7+ countries, their development partners, and international organizations (the UN is represented by the UN Peacebuilding Support Office, FAO and UNDP), is now working to develop practical guidance to support the roll-out of the New Deal in pilot countries.

• TheUnitedNationsPeacebuildingCommission (PBC)and thePeacebuildingSupportOffice(PBSO)The Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) is an intergovernmental advisory body that supports peace efforts in countries emerging from conflict, and is a key addition to the capacity of the International Community in the broad peace agenda5 . Following a request from the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Secretary-General established a Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) for post-conflict peacebuilding initiatives in October 2006. The PBF constitutes an essential component of the enhanced UN architecture to provide for a more sustained engagement in support of countries emerging from conflict and will support peacebuilding activities which directly contribute to post-conflict stabilization and strengthen the capacity of Governments, national/local institutions and transitional or other relevant authorities. The Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) was established to assist and support the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) with strategic advice and policy guidance, administer the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) and to serve the Secretary-General in coordinating United Nations agencies in their peacebuilding efforts.

3 The Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) is the primary mechanism for inter-agency coordination of humanitarian assistance. It is a unique forum involving the key UN and non-UN humanitarian partners. The IASC has designated global cluster leads in eleven areas of humanitarian activity, among which food security with FAO and WFP as co-leaders.

4 For more information on the G7+ please see the website: http://www.g7plus.org/5 Countries currently on the PBC agenda are: Burundi, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Central Africa Republic. For more

information on the PBC please see: http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/

9

• OECD-DACInternationalNetworkonConflictandFragility(INCAF)The Network was founded in 2009 to improve international responses to the most challenging development settings and to chart results. It works in close partnership with the UN, NATO, the World Bank and other bilateral and multilateral agencies dealing with conflict and fragility on issues of peace, security, governance and development effectiveness, facilitating coordination and providing a platform for sharing experiences.It also associates providers of South-South co-operation through consultation and regular dialogue. INCAF has published a suite of documents on transition engagement and funding, including The Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations.

• UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Transitions This group aims at improving the UN’s effectiveness and impact in post-crisis settings: it supports the UN system’s work to develop policies, guidelines and methodological approaches to support countries in post-conflict transition settings.

• The Cluster system and the Global Food Security ClusterLonger-term transition strategies are embedded early on as part of emergency response activities primarily by incorporating good practices of early recovery (with support from the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery). Coordination on early recovery among various clusters is key to enhancing livelihoods-based response and rehabilitation. FAO is engaged in the cluster system, and since early 2011 is co-leading the Food Security Cluster at the global level with the World Food Programme, providing predictable, systematic and timely support to country-level food security humanitarian clusters and similar mechanisms. Coordination is vital to ensure that the range of different actors working in the aftermath of a crisis provide the vulnerable populations with the best possible response, through jointly negotiating their role with the government, preventing duplication of efforts, strengthening synergies and sharing information supporting decision-making and response.

10

GoodpracticesandmainfindingsAll the good practices contained in this document have the following characteristics: they are in support of national strategy and policy in the agricultural sector, are couched in existing and planned institutions, have a clear handover strategy, build household, community and institutional resilience, reduce future risks and vulnerabilities to disasters and support national ownership. Examples of interventions range: from seeking to increase food availability and restore local markets through seeds fairs and e-voucher systems (Burundi and Zimbabwe), to encouraging improved natural resource and land management and increased availability of and access to food through conservation agriculture (Guatemala and Zimbabwe), to facilitating multi-stakeholder detailed livelihood assessments (Pakistan) to supporting community-based capacity building through farmer Field Schools and Agricultural Business Centers (Burundi and Sierra leone) and supplying agricultural inputs to strengthen smallholder commercialization (Sierra Leone).

FAO’s focus is on strengthening the coping capacities and resilience of households, communities and institutions in order to manage their way out of crises, restore agricultural production capacity and food and nutrition security. The rehabilitation phase focuses on more complex, medium-term activities to protect livelihoods and re-establish production, market systems and household strategies. Rehabilitation activities can be undertaken either after restoration ones (mainly in the case of sudden-onset natural disasters) or as the main response. Seed multiplication and input trade fairs are examples of rehabilitation activities, building medium-term sustainability and giving people a choice in how they manage their livelihoods. Likewise, junior farmer field and life schools respond to a crisis that has been worsened by lack of skills, know-how and capacity. When natural resources are overexploited and pre-crisis productive systems lack sustainability, FAO advocates for and implements the principle of “building back better”. In other words, adopting viable livelihood alternatives and improved resource management based on comprehensive needs and damage assessments. In some contexts, FAO discourages full restoration of assets if the environment cannot sustain it or local supply could be negatively affected. FAO offers codes of conduct, guidelines and decision-making tools to determine the benefits of no/reduced asset replacement versus full restoration.

One of the first successful examples of FAO’s work on transition is the project on rehabilitation and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture affected by the tsunami in Aceh Province, Indonesia (OSRO/INS/601/ARC)6, initiated by FAO in January 2007, 2 years after the tsunami. The timing of this project was perfect as the local institutions were ready to engage in rehabilitation and development efforts by that time. This American Red Cross funded project is a good model of post-disaster rehabilitation transition project showing how development practices and DRR interventions can be integrated into an emergency project. The project activities have a strong element of capacity development, both at government and community levels. In addition, through demonstration sites and demand-driven response to community interests, the project sought to develop, introduce and demonstrate good practices for longer-term sustainable development – in participatory planning, management of coastal fishery resources, sustainable aquaculture and improved utilisation of fish post-harvest – and to encourage their wider application by the government and its development partners.

FAO believes in embedding longer-term transition strategies early on as part of the emergency response and rehabilitation activities. It is important to be guided by long-term development objectives when intervening with short- and medium-term measures. The main driver for supporting longer-term, livelihoods-based, transition strategies in the humanitarian phase is addressing the underlying causes of exposure and vulnerability to crises. Early transition programming helps governments, institutions and communities develop their capacity to manage long-term crisis response and reduces the risk of harming production and livelihood systems during the short-term response. Focusing on agriculture from the beginning of a crisis is key to ensure that people are not affected by severe food insecurity and malnutrition in the medium-term. FAO is a specialized agency and brings to the humanitarian context the wealth of its technical expertise to strengthen countries’ and partners’ capacities to respond and directly manage response and rehabilitation.

The main elements of successful transitional programming identified by the good practice examples contained in this document are the following:

National ownershipNational ownership is a key element of transition interventions at FAO. It should be enhanced through extensive stakeholder consultation and public participation regarding objectives that ensure respect for traditional uses, access and rights. Support to national policies and collaboration with local governments at

6 Aceh Province and Nias Island (North Sumatra Province), Indonesia, were the most affected areas of the tsunami of 26 December 2004, one of the world’s worst natural disasters in modern times. The response to the disaster by international and national donors and the public in general was enormous and unprecedented. The challenge for the government and the international community was to judiciously and efficiently use the available resources to rehabilitate in a sustainable and equitable manner the livelihoods that were affected by the tsunami.

11

national, provincial and district levels is key for the enhancement of national ownership: for example in the case of Zimbabwe the effective collaboration between FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development has encouraged the elaboration of a National Strategy for Conservation Agriculture fully adopted and promoted by the national government. The sustainability of this intervention is guaranteed by the establishment of a CA taskforce (co-chaired by FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development) in Zimbabwe where all stakeholders involved in the practice meet regularly (bi-monthly) to discuss, refine/moderate and advance research or enhance understanding of the different principles of CA as stated above as well as serve as a validation platform for the technology. There is also a national CA booklet which was developed under the same auspices for use by all practitioners in CA and which also serves as a reference manual for the practice within the Zimbabwean context.

Integration of DRR activitiesTransition should have a direct link with Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) whose main elements are preparedness, prevention, mitigation7 . Transition efforts should build on local coping mechanisms and they should be fully based on the strategic use and management of natural resources. This process should be guided by socio-economic, cultural and environmental contexts, with a view to strengthening community and household resilience. These interventions should seek to build capacities among local and national stakeholders to better cope with, prevent and mitigate future disasters. This will reduce their vulnerability and enhance development prospects. FAO believes in building links between preparedness, response and rehabilitation in order to improve the effectiveness and impact interventions following the onset of a crisis. Building on preparedness activities, two elements are important for improved rehabilitation and transition to development: 1) adequate data and situation analysis on food security, livelihood profiling, hazard and risk exposure and contingency planning must be available and easy to use as a basis for needs and damage assessments; b) coordination mechanisms must be in place between UN, government and NGOs (e.g. UNCT, clusters) to conduct damage and needs assessments and select and implement the best timely and seasonally appropriate response options. Successful response and rehabilitation interventions must address, in an integrated way, recurrent climate change risks and develop capacities to reduce future hazard exposure and the likely impact of increased climate variability. For example, repeated high losses of crop harvests owing to tropical storms and flooding emphasize the need for technical assistance and advice on appropriate crop varieties that mature before peak flooding and cyclone seasons or varieties that are more tolerant to wind to minimize losses associated with storms.

A major example of the integration of prevention activities in transition is given by Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe. Conservation agriculture has become increasingly important as a means for enabling all farmers, particularly those with small land holdings and facing chronic food insecurity, to increase their production in an environmentally sound way that impacts minimally on the natural resource base. FAO has been working closely with NGOs and small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe to introduce conservation farming techniques and improve food production. Despite greater frequency of and more prolonged drought conditions, crops farmed under CA have shown better resistance to dry spells, when the crops of neighbouring farmers have completely failed as a result of conventional farming methods. Conservation Agriculture is defined as a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that strives to achieve acceptable profits, high and sustained production levels while concurrently conserving and sustaining the environment. The promotion of CA has resulted in the improvement in productivity of mainly staple crops such as maize, groundnuts, sugarbeans and cowpeas and the intensification of production on a small piece of land thereby circumventing the challenges of inadequate land ownership by both men and women.

Capacity development One of the main purposes of transition activities is to strengthen the capacities of governments and institutions. FAO can then play a facilitation and advisory partnership role, while institutions and technical departments manage the implementation of activities and the coordination of all stakeholders. Capacity development in transition should support long-term trends and sustainability. During the identification of good practices, a particular emphasisi has been given on aspects related to capacity development, therefore the interventions address all three dimensions of Capacity Development (Individual, Organizations and Enabling Environment). Moreover capacity development efforts go beyond technical areas and include soft skill development in areas such as planning, budgeting, partnering, negotiating.

Community-based capacity building is key for success: a successful example is given by Farmers Field Schools (FFS) in Burundi which enable local farmers to find local solutions to their problems, ensure social cohesion and contribute to peace consolidation. FFS have positive effects in the sense that they reinforce sociopolitical capacity, especially of women, whilst also improving knowledge of agriculture and nutrition and simultaneously provoke a multiplier effect whereby members of FFS which have been set up by FAO 7 FAO has recently developed a DRR for Food and Nutrition Security Framework Programme which serves to support and provide strategic

direction to FAO member countries and partners for the implementation of DRR interventions. It is available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2540e/i2540e00.pdf.

12

then go on to set up their own FFS. Another successful example of community-based capacity building is given by FAO’s work in Guatemala where community-based organizations are empowered in order to be in charge of purchase, storage and commercialization of grain. Participatory approaches to build the human, social and financial capital of local communities involve all groups and stakeholders within the community.

Inclusive planningIt is important to base planning on a thorough understanding of the context through participatory approaches (e.g. livelihoods assessments). Moreover it is essential to ensure national/local involvement in programme identification, formulation, implementation and monitoring. Particular attention should be paid to including women and marginalized groups and, to the extent possible, local communities and institutions should be proactively involved in planning decisions. A successful example of inclusive planning is the Detailed Livelihood Assessment carried out in Pakistan by FAO in collaboration with the National and provincial Disaster Management Authorities in order to evaluate the extent to which rural households had recovered from the 2010 floods in terms of livelihoods and food security and to understand problems and issues which remain unresolved for livelihood recovery and the implications for future programming. The intervention has ensured national/local involvement in programme identification, formulation, implementation and monitoring and has promoted a sense of ownership and acceptance of the assessment results.

Market-based interventions Market-based interventions are particularly important for transitioning from emergency to development: they promote the access to agricultural inputs while enhancing innovative approaches to restore and support local markets. A successful example is given by seed fairs in Burundi: although they require significant logistics, seed fairs are a very good transition from emergency to development. On the one hand, vulnerable households receive assistance in the form of coupons with which to purchase inputs, and on the other hand the activity injects funds into the rural area and stimulates the local economy by assuring the flow of local products and the stimulation of local systems of seed production. The beneficiaries are empowered, choosing for themselves, the inputs most adapted to their situation and environment. Another important example of market-based approach is provided by the Zimbabwe good practices related to contract farming, e-vouchers and egg commercialization. Contract farming has served as a mechanism to reduce marketing and transaction costs, price risks and other negative externalities facing smallholder farmers, enabling them to benefit from demand-driven growth in high-value agriculture. The use of electronic vouchers (e-vouchers) introduced by FAO during the 2011/12 season for the provision of agricultural inputs to farmers enhanced the development of the local economy and agrodealers were able to push more volumes of inputs and generate more income through the voucher programme. Finally the egg production model demonstrates how the farmers can participate in commercial livestock farming to generate income through planned production and marketing: proper training in husbandry and health management as well as marketing issues through commodity associations are some of the key activities of this intervention.

13

Below is a table containing the list of good practices identified in the context of this initiative and categorized according to the main elements of successful transitional programming already mentioned.

Table 1: Summary of good practices

Good Practice Title Country Focus

Nat

iona

l ow

ners

hip

Inte

grat

ion

of

DRR

Cap

acity

de

velo

pmen

t

Incl

usive

pl

anni

ng

Mar

ket-b

ased

in

terv

entio

ns

Seed fairs Burundi

Farmer Field Schools Burundi

Integrated community-based interventions Guatemala

Community-based sytems of maize storage Guatemala

Hazard, Livelihood and Vulnerability Baseline Pakistan

Detailed Livelihoods Assessment Pakistan

On-farm watercourse rehabilitation through Cash for Work Pakistan

“Smallholder Commercialization Programme” Sierra Leone

Upscaling and promotion of Conservation Agriculture Zimbabwe

Commercialization of egg production in the smallholder sector Zimbabwe

Promoting input/output marketing through contract farming Zimbabwe

E-vouchers for agricultural inputs Zimbabwe

14

Seed fairs in BurundiSummary Seed fairs have been a key intervention carried out by FAO in the wake of the Burundian civil war which spanned more than ten years and left hundreds of thousands struggling to cope with its dire consequences. The vulnerability of those served by seed fairs is characterised by a lack of livelihood opportunities as well as an inability to save or produce enough to be able to save seed or sell produce. Targeting the most vulnerable households, these fairs addressed the most basic agricultural needs of vulnerable groups, whilst providing income generating opportunities, cash injections in the local economy, community tax revenues, as well as agricultural inputs which enable agricultural activities to

be re-established. Seed fairs in Burundi have been most widely appreciated for their ability to address situations of transitions from emergency contexts to those of long-term development.

Although they require significant logistics, seed fairs are a very good transition from emergency to development. On the one hand, vulnerable households receive assistance in the form of coupons with which to purchase inputs, and on the other hand the activity injects funds into the rural area and stimulates the local economy by assuring the flow of local products and the stimulation of local systems of seed production. Social cohesion is also a key outcome of these fairs as it brings different groups together.In addition the beneficiaries are empowered, choosing the inputs for themselves, most importantly choosing the inputs most adapted to their situation and environment.

Gender sensitivity is something which is critical to the way in which seed fairs are carried out. In terms of beneficiary targeting, more women are chosen than men, given that women face more factors which cause them to be vulnerable. If we take the example of widows compared with widowers, a widow in Burundi faces many more challenges than their male counterpart, a reason for which FAO targets widow-headed households through seed fairs. The same can be said for orphan-headed households. In addition to beneficiaries, seed fairs aim to be gender sensitive in choosing the seed sellers, and over the last years the male-female proportion has increased to around 50-50.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingIntegration of DRR: Seed fairs are accompanied by measures aimed at ensuring that the right varieties are available and guaranteeing the quality of the seed offered to farmers. They also promote diversity of crops and cultivars and enable farmers to access seed in a timely manner conducive with the planting season.

Capacity development: Seed fairs promote choice and empowerment while building on partnerships andcommunity capacities.

Inclusive planning: Understanding farmer seed systems is the basis for any successful intervention: the success of sees fairs is based on the appreciation that pre-intervention seed security assessments need to be formalized as part of the overall intervention.

Market-based interventions: Seed fairs are open and transparent markets in which vulnerable households are granted special access to agricultural inputs of their choice. Instead of money, coupons (provided by FAO) are used, given to the beneficiary households who then purchase diversified seeds and other inputs from local producers who are known to the beneficiaries (around 50 producers/sellers per fair, to around 700 beneficiaries). These seed sellers are given a chance to sell their produce and only those sellers with high quality seed are admitted to the market.

Geographical originSince 2006, FAO Burundi has progressively increased its use of seed fairs and decreased its reliance on direct distributions. As can be observed, towards the beginning of FAO seed fairs in Burundi around 4000 households were served in one season, with the high point being 62 650 households. Seed fairs have been held across the country, targeting the most vulnerable communities affected by disasters, catastrophes or other factors creating a situation of acute vulnerability. FAO carries out seed fair activities alongside CRS and GTZ, and shares communes with these organizations within provinces to avoid a duplication of effort.

In Burundi, seed fairs were first carried out by CRS in the mid 2000’s in the province of Kirundo. Seed fairs

15

had originally been set up by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in Uganda in 2000, and have now spread to more than 16 African countries. FAO’s Emergency Rehabilitation and Coordination Unit (ERCU) in Burundi initially addressed the needs of those vulnerable groups currently served by seed fairs through direct distributions, but beneficiary satisfaction levels were markedly less high with direct distributions than with seed fairs.

Stakeholders and partnersBeneficiaries of the seed fairs are selected according to FAO vulnerability criteria. These households are typically headed by orphans aged between 5 and 13 years, handicapped individuals or those suffering from incurable diseases (HIV/AIDS,etc.), with the household often headed by children, households headed by aged individuals or by widows/widowers with young children in their care. In addition households caring for a handicapped individual or orphans also benefit from seed fairs, as well as albinos.

The beneficiaries are selected through participatory methods (ciblage participatif), the lists of beneficiaries are publically validated and subsequently validated by the communal administration. Each “colline” chooses the most vulnerable households in its area and then propose them to be beneficiaries. In addition to the direct beneficiaries of seed fairs, local producers who come to sell their seeds and inputs benefit from seed fairs, given that they are given an opportunity to sell their produce and benefit from access to income generating opportunities which they would otherwise not have access to. In many cases local producers are given the impetus to become sellers by producing more seed to sell at the fairs. Local NGOs work as intermediaries between FAO and the beneficiaries. The DPAE’s (Provincial Director of Agriculture and Livestock) and local government administration work alongside the local NGOs in the every step of the process through the management/running of the seed fairs, especially with beneficiary targeting and sensitization of sellers. Donors who have supported FAO seed fairs have been ECHO, Belgium, Japan, the African Development Bank, Austria and the CERF fund.

ValidationSeed fairs have been validated indirectly by beneficiaries in that they preferred seed fairs to direct distributions, which is what prompted FAO to select this action in the first place. In mid-2008 FAO, CRS, GTZ and some other major NGOs came together in Gitega to harmonize seed fair activities taking place in Burundi. The thinking behind this harmonization was to ensure that all regions were receiving the same support and that local NGOs, DPAEs and the local administration (many of which were partners with different organizations in different regions) could all perform to the best of their abilities. The value of coupons, the set-up and management, and the content of the kit distributed to the beneficiaries were all harmonized across organizations and geographical areas. This harmonization was carried out in partnership with all stakeholders.

ImpactSeed fairs provide the most vulnerable groups with the foundation on which to build agricultural livelihoods. For those who had already been involved in agricultural activities, the seed fairs enable them to complement their previous activities with further ones, thus reinforcing livelihoods and ensuring that situations of acute vulnerability are less likely to occur and emergency interventions are no longer needed, leaving room for development activities. Food security is ensured through agricultural diversification as a variety of seeds is available. Vulnerable groups are less likely to face acute vulnerability given that the minimum agricultural needs have been met. The beneficiaries are empowered - they have the ability to choose the inputs they will purchase with the FAO provided coupons.

In addition to the seed which beneficiaries buy and cultivate with, household level income is bolstered by the vegetable and fruit seed distributed to each household, as they can sell what they produce. Production coming from the purchased seed is used to meet household nutritional needs. Any additional production is sold to increase household level income, and beneficiaries can then save the seed for subsequent seasons. This way the following seasons not only will the beneficiaries have enough to eat and seed to sow, but money will be available to use for other basic needs and most importantly to start other income generating activities or increase the potential of their current activities (buying/renting more land, fertilizer, etc.)

Innovation and success factorsSeed fairs contribute to an innovation in livelihoods through a process of example setting. Experience shows that several beneficiaries who benefitted from seed fair support were then able to produce enough seed to be able to become sellers in other seed fairs. This process of ‘progression’ from one level to the next is the key aspect of seed fairs which makes them stand out as a key intervention in transition situations. Those who progress from the level of a direct beneficiary to that of a seller set an example not only to other direct beneficiaries, but also to the surrounding community, who see sellers generating significant income and follow their lead.

16

The key conditions which will determine the success of a seed fair are as follows:• availability of sufficient quantity of inputs: if we imagine that a seed fair will serve 600 beneficiaries,

who all receive a coupon worth 14 000 Fbu each, around 11 tons of bean seed would be needed, as well as the variety of other seed and input, to cater to the choices of the beneficiaries;

• that the seed fair takes place around 3-4 weeks before seed sowing season;• the site on which the seed fair will take place must be equipped with significant infrastructure

(toilets, water points, shelter for rain, etc.); and• the site must be located within a reasonable distance to the beneficiaries, so that the inputs will be

able to be carried back to the households, so that the seed fair is not held in a prohibitively distant location, and so that beneficiaries can return to their home while there is still light and thus avoid theft of input. Experience shows that seed fairs held long distances from beneficiary households are less successful than those held at close distances.

Constraints The eventual success of a seed fair depends in great part on the success of the targeting process. If it is incorrectly carried out, as has occurred in past seed fairs, then there are problems which will occur. In some cases, local authorities are instructed to select a number of beneficiaries among an even larger number of vulnerable people (e.g. 500 beneficiaries in an area where 1 000 are vulnerable and in need of assistance). In these cases the local authorities often organise for the 500 selected beneficiaries to share the inputs they receive with another household, meaning the inputs provided for 500 households are then divided between the 1 000 vulnerable people. This undermines the whole operation given that the inputs provided are of the quantity required to enable one household to produce enough to feed their family and also save for future seasons and for selling, which does not happen in the above scenario. There are secondary benefits in this scenario, such as social cohesion, but the fundamental objective has been compromised. The above scenario can be avoided with successful sensitization of the local authorities.

Another constraint is that of payment. Due to the payment procedures in place at FAO, complications can arise in the payment process linked to contracts and memorandums of understanding. FAO/ERCU Burundi overcame this problem by setting up contracts with local banks.

Lessons learned Seed fairs can be very successful in situations of transition as they put beneficiaries and sellers in contact and show how the ‘graduation’ can be successful. They put example cases on show, which others can then follow. They meet the immediate needs of the vulnerable population whilst taking into account their long term needs, and those of the surrounding community.

Seed fairs are very popular with beneficiaries and successful because they take into account the pride of vulnerable groups. The beneficiaries have a say in the development process and feel empowered to make decisions which will affect them. For women, seed fairs provide an opportunity to take part in activities which will affect them and they give them hope and enable them to see how other women have overcome significant obstacles.

SustainabilitySustainability is assured by a sense of ownership on behalf of the beneficiaries. They selected seed fairs over direct distributions in the first place, and during the seed fairs, they decide which inputs they will purchase with the FAO vouchers. All major stakeholders have a say in the decision making process throughout the seed fairs, making sure that everyone has something to gain if the fair is successful.

Another aspect of sustainability is the stimulation of the surrounding population. Even those who are not directly involved in the seed fair have an interest in the fairs, as can be seen by the steady increase in the number of sellers who attend the fairs. The seed fairs would, in the ideal situation, be managed and run by the local community and beneficiaries themselves, with FAO playing a coordinating role.

17

Table 2: Beneficiary households of seed fairs in Burundi

Total since 2006 = 290 550 Households A total of around 1.5 million vulnerable people served by FAO seed fairs since 2006.

A high level of increasing beneficiaries for Seed Fairs since 2009

Related resourcesSeveral basic descriptive guides for seed fairs are available, in French, and are used in some of the training.

Contact details Hubert Chauvet, Acting FAO Representative, FAO Burundi E-mail: hubert.chauvet@fao.org

Agricultural Season BeneficiaryHouseholds2006B 5 0002007A 7 8002007B 5 6002008A 7 1002008B 4 0002009A 20 4002009B 12 1002010A 42 5002010B 47 9002011A 50 5002011B 62 6502012A 25 000

18

Farmer Field Schools in BurundiSummary and geographical origin FAO Burundi first began implementing Farmer Field School (FFS) activities in 2008 with a project entitled “Technical assistance with the Livestock Farmer Field School approach” (OSRO/BDI/809/IFA). The project, funded by IFAD involved FAO giving technical support to IFAD’s interventions in the livestock sector, and focused on the successful cultivation of forage plants.

The reason no FFS had been set up before 2008 is that the situation in Burundi had not been favorable to these activities. Following a protracted period of emergencies, starting in 2008 the types of interventions necessary and possible began to change along with the context, which

in turn became one of transition between emergencies and development. It is in this context that a series of FFS have been set up through different projects.

With Swedish funding, two major projects have set up FFS which can be described as fitting to the ‘transition’ category: a) the regional project entitled ‘Adresser la problématique du VIH et des inégalités de genre par une réponse de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition en Afrique Centrale et de l’Est’ (OSRO/RAF/010/SWE); and b) the national project entitled ‘Autonomisation agro-économique de ménages vulnérables dans les provinces de Bujumbura Rural, Bururi, Makamba, Rutana, Gitega et Mwaro’ (OSRO/BDI/102/SWE). These two projects have integrated aspects of nutrition, gender and HIV into the FFS and have set up FFLS and JFFLS in various parts of the country. A European Union project entitled ‘Programme LRRD d’appui à la viabilisation des villages ruraux intégrés dans le cadre du rapatriement et de la réintégration au Burundi’ (OSRO/BDI/005/EC) has also begun setting up 13 FFS in the Rural Integrated Villages in the south of the country.

In addition, two of the development projects carried out by FAO Burundi have set up or are in the process of setting up FFS: the HUP project ‘Horticulture Urbaine et periurbaine’ and the regional TAMP Kagera project.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: FAO Burundi has been working in close collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, providing technical assistance in the formalizing of national FFS policies which will be implemented across the country.

Integration of DRR: Through the FFS, beneficiaries are able to compare various crops, for example local varieties with introduced varieties and learn techniques such as pest and disease management and soil fertility management.

Capacity development: Before 2008, when Burundi could be categorized in a strictly emergency humanitarian context, any capacity building was generally done through regular training due to numerous restrictive factors (including insecurity) which meant that FFS were not possible. FFS have been used in the transition period since 2008 because security has improved and FFS provide a useful tool with which to build capacity and resilience.

Inclusive planning: Given that FFS are a participatory process where all actors are given as say in the running and management of the groups, validation by the beneficiaries is clear, and any activities, themes or issues dealt with in the FFS are chosen by the beneficiaries, for the beneficiaries.

Stakeholders and partnersFAO Burundi has been working in close collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition FAO provided IFAD with technical assistance through support in setting up FFS linked to livestock (see above). As well as working in collaboration with donors who have funded FFS activities (IFAD, the EU and Sweden), FAO collaborates with local organizations and NGOs, as well as associations of a varied nature.

ValidationGiven that FFS are a participatory process where all actors are given as say in the running and management of the groups, validation by the beneficiaries is clear, and any activities, themes or issues dealt with in the FFS are chosen by the beneficiaries, for the beneficiaries.

19

Success and innovation factorsIn 2011 the Burundian Ministry of Agriculture and livestock (MINAGRIE) proposed a TCP to FAO Burundi which would take the form of institutional support to MINAGRIE in formalizing and harmonizing FFS policies across the country. FAO and MINAGRIE are in the process of putting the finishing touches to the project at time of writing (February 2012). In February 2012 FAO Burundi set up around 214 FFS (of which 182 FFS, 24 FFLS and 8 JFFLS). Each FFS has between 25 and 35 members each, making a total of around 6420 members benefitting from FAO’s FFS activities in Burundi.

The FFS activities that FAO Burundi has been carrying out constitute a best practice for transition situation because they have adapted to different contexts and needs; from dealing with the direct needs of vulnerable populations raising cattle (clearly emergency), orphans, vulnerable women and vulnerable groups affected by HIV through the JFFLS (rehabilitation), to more development oriented FFS such as those linked to the Urban and sub-urban horticulture FFS’s. For a more descriptive overview of FAO Burundi FFS activities please read the article which appear in the DIMITRA newsletter of early 2012.

ImpactFarmer Field Schools have had the following positive impact:

• contribute towards an increase in agricultural productivity and food security;• enable local farmers to find local solutions to their problems;• ensure uptake and sustainability as the FFS are self-run groups where all participants have a stake in

the success of the school;• ensure social cohesion as the FFS bring different groups together which in a fragmented society

contributes to peace consolidation;• include factors beyond agriculture such as issues related to reproductive health, justice and law,

women’s emancipation and other important factors which will in turn contribute towards long term development;

• reinforce sociopolitical capacity, especially of women, whilst also improving knowledge of agriculture and nutrition; and

• a multiplier effect has been witnessed whereby members of FFS which have been set up by FAO then go on to set up their own FFS.

SustainabilityThe sustainability of FFS is clearly visible on the ground in Burundi. Not only do people take an active interest in the FFS approach, both at the local level within and around beneficiaries, but also at government levels where the FFS approach is being adopted at the national level with FAO’s technical assistance. In addition FFS members often go on to set up their own FFS groups thus continuing the work already done by FAO.

Contact details Hubert Chauvet, Acting FAO Representative, FAO Burundi E-mail: hubert.chauvet@fao.org

20

Integrated community-based interventions in GuatemalaSummary and geographical coverageDuring the past two years the impacts of the international economic crisis have affected the Republic of Guatemala, particularly the most vulnerable households. Guatemala’s levels of food and nutritional insecurity are among the worst in the world with 49.3 percent of children chronic malnutrition. Poor households depend on a poor diet, rely on an unstable income, and live without food reserves. To cope with the lack of food they tend to reduce the number of meals per day. In addition, Guatemala has also become one of the countries most affected by climate change and natural disasters, with dramatic effects on rural livelihoods.

In this context FAO has designed and is currently implementing a project initiative over the basis and structure created by the EU Food Facility (EUFF) project. In particular, this initiative seeks to a) diversify and increase small scale farmers’ agricultural production based on the principles of Conservation Agriculture; b) improve the different modalities of extension services provided by the national agricultural extension system and by local associations in the selected areas of intervention; c) strengthen farmers associations’ capacities to better take advantage of the local market; d) improve the nutritional status of selected households in these departments and prevent acute malnutrition. This Project (OSRO/GUA/101/EC) has started in November 2011 and is expected to last until november 2013.

The project benefits 12 000 families of the Departments of Alta Verapaz (2000), Baja Verapaz (3200), El Quiché (4800) and Totonicapán (2000). Families have been selected among EUFF beneficiaries according to the National Food Security Secretariat (SESAN) vulnerability indicators and land availability.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: The project is implemented by FAO in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Food (MAGA) through the VISAN (MAGA’s Viceministry of Food Security), the National Food Security Secretariat (SESAN) and Municipalities. SESAN ensures the coordination with other partners with activities in food security with the targeted population and coordinates the process for the selection of beneficiaries. Municipalities, together with National Extension System SNEA, ensure coordination with other partners actively involved in food security in the area of implementation of the project through the Local Steering Committees (LSC).

Integration of DRR: The project targets areas that are prone to natural disasters and have been regularly hit by droughts, excessive rainfalls and landslides. If producers can incorporate better cultivation based on Conservation Agriculture, Good Agricultural Practices, and post-harvest practices, there will be lasting benefits for production. The project’s activities promote the sustained management of natural resources, taking in consideration the participation of local communities in decisions taken, for the elaboration of proposal related to the rights of participation, in the use, management and conservation of the natural resources, considering the micro-basin as a planning unit with focus of local risk management.

Capacity development: The work with the Institute for Science and Technology (ICTA) envisages strengthening the knowledge of the technical teams of the project partner institutions as well as extension promoters, focusing on topics such as improved seeds of local varieties of maize and beans in the different agro ecological areas of coverage.

Inclusive planning: All extension activities are directly related to a municipal agency of extension. This allows families, promoters, technical staff of the municipalities, institutions and organizations to continue working in a coordinated manner, optimizing human and financial resources, in a result oriented process in the short, medium and long term. Working closely with local institutions has allowed bringing the issue of food security and nutrition to the local level.

Market-based interventions: In the medium and long term, interventions focus on the more sustainable development of local and regional agricultural production and marketing, as well as of alternative economic opportunities targeting the poorest sectors in order to increase and/or protect purchasing power and access to food. These interventions are intended to improve the availability of food within farmer families and market in the targeted areas aiming to improve family nutrition, to stabilize a sustainable production system.

21

Emphasis is placed on the promotion and gradual implementation of good agricultural practices (GAPs)8 when implementing field-based activities for income generation, improving household production systems and increasing maize production in high potential areas. Administrative and financial strengthening are an important aspect to consider when working with the commercialization processes with community-based organizations.

Stakeholders and partnersFAO continues to build on strategic partnerships established during the EUFF with the Municipalities, Consejos Municipales de Desarrollo (COMUDES) and Consejos Comunitarios de Desarrollo (COCODES) in close coordination with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (MAGA), through the Secretary of Food Security (SESAN) and farmers associations. The coordination at departmental and national levels is delegated to Local Steering Committees (LSC) and the National Steering Committee (NSC). FAO aims at further increasing its coordination role between implementing partners to better share information and experience and considers direct agreements with Municipalities and experienced NGOs to ensure implementation and build capacity of local actors.

Methodological approachThe intervention strategy is based on: (i) building productive, organizational, managerial and marketing capacity of small subsistence farmers; (ii) improving the productivity and increasing the food stock at family level through the use of certified seeds and inputs. (iii) Based on the patio hogar backyard approach, promoters and families are trained on the food nutritional properties and food preparation, on good practices for the access and use of water and on the monitoring of their maize and bean reserves.

The following methodological steps have been followed to initiate the project activities:• participatory planning and joint plans: this defines the joint/complementary actions to be developed

by MAGA, municipalities, associations of municipalities, producer groups, partners and the PMU to meet needs within the agreed timeframe and to achieve the planned outputs. The priorities of partners and counterparts must also be considered; and

• implementation by local actors and counterpart/partner institutions: this includes implementing the above mentioned participatory plan, ensuring that negotiated and established commitments are met, as well as complementing efforts. FAO methodological approaches and policies will be used as implementation support tools.

The project activities gives special attention to strengthening participation of women, including moving agricultural organizations towards gender equality, while enhancing skills of rural women. Training includes:

• creating the necessary mechanisms to promote empowerment of women in farmers’ organizations and ensure that changes are understood and accepted;

• developing skills of men and women through training on gender and organizational change;• encouraging the participation of women in membership and leadership; • requiring participation of women in all training modules; and• implementing gender-friendly activities (such as scheduling, etc.).

ValidationMonitoring and evaluation is an ongoing part of the process taken forward by this good practice and requires stakeholder participation. This makes it possible to reflect on the progress and results that have been achieved as a result of implementing the activities, with the aim of further empowering participant families and groups and fostering their ownership of the process.

ImpactThe problem of food price rises, natural disasters and undernutrition has prompted FAO to develop actions through its various projects to stabilize and improve rural families’ crop growing systems in order to guarantee family reserves for home consumption, diversifying production through root crops, herbs and fruit trees and undertaking initiatives such as food production in urban and peri-urban areas through hydroponic (soil-less) gardening and organoponic (small-scale urban organic garden) cultivation.

8 FAO provides a guidance tool on GAPs, entitled “Good agricultural practices for family agriculture”, which can be accessed at http://www.rlc.fao.org/es/agricultura/bpa/pdf/manual_e.pdf.

22

The particular attention given to strengthening community-based organizations is important as it:• facilitates immediate project intervention;• enhances the sustainability of the processes to implement;• provides capacity building to families in terms of organizational and extension capacities;• integrates partners and associates within the maize value chain; and• strengthen the human capital of the Executive Committees (Juntas Directivas).

Innovation ans success factorsThe food price crisis presented an opportunity to promote integrated rural initiatives that focus on boosting the rural and indigenous economy, which could play a key role in overcoming the food crisis. Therefore, managing the food price crisis has required taking urgent short-term measures while simultaneously identifying and implementing medium- and long-term interventions. In the short-term, measures have focused on expanding the coverage of existing social protection, nutrition and food aid programmes, with particular emphasis on the most vulnerable populations. In parallel, large-scale actions have been implemented to boost local food production, strengthen the domestic economy and increase the purchasing power of the most vulnerable households.

ConstraintsThese are the major project constraints:

• The democratic control of the activities of each organization might be vanished due to the personal interests of its members. Therefore it is important to strengthen the leadership skills of organizations’ members.

• The deterioration of the principle of solidarity and responsibility of the leaders of each organization is also another constraint. For this reason it is important to promote cooperative attitudes.

• The little involvement in local decision making processes. requires interventions that can promote the participation of community-based organizations to these spaces.

Lessons learnedTaking into account the causes of food insecurity and malnutrition in Guatemala, it is important to develop long term interventions together with more short-term actions and emergency actions when needed, including tackling soil erosion, both from disaster prevention perspective (prevents landslides) and as a development concern (improves soil productivity). There is a significant opportunity for FAO to capitalize on past investments in agricultural development, food security and nutrition and thereby achieve a multiplier effect through the coordination of effort, consolidation of success and maintenance of momentum. It also necessary to work on marketing activities initiated under the EUFF with local associations and groups of farmers which have the potential to increase production and produce surpluses. This process was given little importance in past years in Guatemala, while today it has been demonstrated that it is an important aspect to improve the food security and nutrition status of these families.

The best results are achieved working with community-based organizations. To the extent that the actions of the project are aimed at strengthening the organizational structures of community-based organizations, while acting with the beneficiary families, this allows these organizations to constantly accompany the evolution of the project. The identification of appropriate community-based organizations is crucial for the effective achievement of the objectives of an emergency project. To obtain and maintain a commitment by the community-based organization to implement an emergency/rehabilitation project is key to the sustainability of project interventions. To implement appropriate strategies and training of those involved in a grassroots organizational structure strengthens and helps ensure the project results. The legal status of community-based organizations provides stability to the processes of a project intervention, in addition to their formal institutionalization.

SustainabilityThere is a wide gap between current and potential staple grain yields. Grain productivity could double, as shown in the implementation of the EUFF project, if existing technology was properly used. Programmes for distributing agricultural packages (inputs with technical and financial assistance) help increase yields and if producers can incorporate better cultivation based on Conservation Agriculture, Good Agricultural Practices, and post-harvest practices, there will be lasting benefits for production. The EUFF project has shown the critical role of delivering seeds and fertilizers together with technical assistance to boost agricultural productivity and promote diversification. The impressive demand of farmers to expand good agricultural practices related to conservation agriculture, combining profitable agricultural production with environmental concerns and sustainability, underline the need for production technical assistance.

23

In Guatemala, the Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Food has begun a process aimed at establishing a new public extension system, named SNEA. The technical staff of these agencies need first to be trained on methodologies and intervention strategies as a requirement prior to their assignment. This training is provided by the project team, drawing on the experience of FAO. The present project therefore allows the process to move more quickly with families and local extension promoters, and strengthening the SNEA team in the municipalities under their competence.

UpscalingIn order to further upscale this intervention the following is required:

• integrate more efficient actors and actions in the area of intervention of each organization to reduce international cooperation;

• promote the lessons learned with other organizations; and• develop links with more male and female farmers, establishing conditions for the consolidation

of these links.

ConclusionEnsuring the effectiveness of the processes with the actors of a community-based organization through the visibility of project’s results, determines the degree of commitment to that organization. Strengthening the knowledge of male and female members of community committees (juntas directivas) of community-based organizations, with the involvement of national ministries and municipalities, is crucial for achieving project’s objectives.

Contact detailsGustavo Garcia, Agronomist, Emergency Rehabilitation and Coordination Unit, FAO Guatemala E-mail: gustavo.garcia@fao.org

Julio Juárez, Agronomist, Regional Director, Alta Verapas, FAO Guatemala E-mail: julio.juarez@fao.org

Related Web site(s)www.fao.org.gt

24

Community-based sytems of maize storage in GuatemalaSummary and geographical coverageIn the western region of Guatemala, the poor and extremely poor families every year see their consumption of maize deminished from June to September. This stems from the small size of land per family (0.35 ha); in addition soil erosion, low yields and weather conditions contribute to low production, few household stocks, price increases in times of scarcity and poor access to maize.

The objective of this good pratice is to ensure that community-level households have quality maize in times of scarcity, through a management of the process by community committees trained in buying and selling

maize grain, harvesting practices, post harvesting grain storage, accounting, administration and community management. Relevant activities during the development of this intervention are: the participatory selection of communities, the organization and legalization of committees composed of 95 women (38.4 percent of participating families), training of groups in technical, commercial and administrative issues and linkage with organizations and institutions in the area. This Project was carried out between September 2011 and February 2012.

The Project interventions (Project OSRO/GUA/005/BRA) were carried out in the following areas: the department of Totonicapán (municipalities of Santa Lucia La Reforma, Santa Maria Chiquimula and the department of Quiché, (municipalities of Chicamán, Uspantán, Sacapulas, San Andrés Sajcabajá, San Bartolomé Jocotenango, San Pedro Jocopilas).

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: Municipal Governments and Community Development Councils (COCODE) supported the legalization of community committees and provided technical support, in order for the Local Government to be in charge of accompanying the process at the end of the Project.

Integration of DRR: Community-based sytems of maize storage are a used as a DRR measure as they guarantee availability of maize grain at community level in times of shortage at a fair price.it increases community and household resilience against shocks.

Capacity development: Community committees are trained in buying and selling maize grain, harvesting practices, post harvesting grain storage, accounting, administration and community management.Inclusive planning: The Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA and Department of Food and Nutritional Security (SESAN) has supported the selection of communities and groups, training of community committees, capacity building and technical assistance. Local governments and community committees were involved in many stages of the process.

Market-based interventions: Purchasing and marketing played an important role among the activities of the Community Development Councils, members of the beneficiary families, male and female volunteer rural promoters.

Stakeholders and partnersThis Project has benefited 250 poor and extremely poor households living in the priority communities. The users have been: household beneficiaries, neighboring communities, producers of surplus of maize from neighboring municipalities. This is due to the fact that the Project buys maize grain in harvest time, then stores it in community metal silos and afterwards sells it in the lean season. This intervention has been funded by the Government of Brazil and it has been realized in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA), the Ministry of Food and Nutritional Security (SESAN) and local municipalities. Community Committees were in charge of purchase, storage and grain commercialization while the Technical Project Team has provided seed capital to purchase metal silos and maize grain, technical assistance for the use of metal silos and proper handling of grain, training for committee members, interinstitutional links, monitoring and evaluation. Women have participated in the community committees and have been trained in different subjects: this is important because women in Guatemala are the most concerned by the household stocks of maize and beans and they are also involved in the maintenance of silos, grain sales, administrative and accounting activities. Men had a similar role, with the difference that men are responsible for the purchase and storage of grain as well as for administrative and accounting activities. The Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA and

25

Department of Food and Nutritional Security (SESAN) has supported the selection of communities and groups, training of community committees, capacity building and technical assistance.

Methodological approachThe adopted methodology required a participatory approach to build the human, social and financial capital of local communities: this process will involve all groups and stakeholders within the community: members of the beneficiary families, male and female volunteer rural promoters, members of the COCODEs, where the main activities involved can include: self-selection of families, organization, training, implementation, purchasing, marketing, grain storage, training events, visits, tours, exchange of experiences and inter-linkages.

ValidationCurrently this practice is being implemented through participatory processes in 25 communities in 8 municipalities in 2 departments of Guatemala.

ImpactThe impact of this intervention has resulted in:

• strengthening the human and social capital of rural communities;• strengthening the rural economy at community level;• allowing the direct participation of 95 women in the community committees (38 percent of the total

participants in the process);• providing capacity building to ensure sustainability in the implementation and subsequent management

of storage systems; and• guaranteeing good grain quality at a fair price in peak periods of scarcity to the poor and extremely

poor.

Innovation and success factorsThe main innovation and success factors are the following:

• implementation of community storage systems of grain reserve managed by households of the local community;

• capacities developed at community level;• infrastructure for storage systems;• women as leaders of the rural committees;• management of storage systems; and• link with regional producers to supply storage systems.

ConstraintsOne of the biggest challenges is the proper management of the fund at the end of the Project. For this reason the community committees managing the funds are linked to the COCODES and Local Governments. It is also difficult to guarantee the continuation of the Technical Assistance: for this reason FAO staff is working closely with the technical teams of the National Extension (SNEA) of MAGA in order for them to continue supporting these activities at the end of the project. Finally another constraint is constituted by the low availability of grain to purchase in the area: to minimize this challenge the project team has been linking members of the community committees with maize producers within and outside the area of intervention for procurement in future cycles.

Lessons learned• The participation of women in management positions facilitates he participation of other women from

the community.• This community-based system of seed storage encourages the involvement of rural households

considering that this as an innovative model in the region.• Working with stakeholders in the community (community committees) strengthens social relationships

while promoting the leadership of those have an active role in the process.• The households that belong to participating communities have shown less concern to grain reserve in

their community, because they are confident they will have this input during the most critical shortage periods.

• Linking the Community Grain Committee with COCODEs and Local Governments, institutions

26

and organizations in the area give credibility to the process, and this results in the fact that groups of neighboring communities have shown interest in starting the process.

Sustainability• The male and female members of the community committees should be trained in the management

of seed capital, as well as good practices of harvesting, post harvest management and storage of grain.

• The Community Committees should be properly linked to COCODES, local governments and extensión team inthe SNEA of MAGA.

• It is crucial to organize periodic community meetings, in order to socialize the negotiating process.

Upscaling• Neighbouring communities implement and adopt the Community system of grain storage, as they

realize the benefits received by households that have already implemented this process.• We recommend the exchange of experiences with other communities allowing new communities

to visit the community system of grain storage is established. These visits should preferably be performed in periods of scarcity as this will cause a big impact on visitors and will push them to implement this system in their own communities.

• To have a greater impact should be planned that the Community system of grain storage in the future should become a micro enterprise at community level to keep pace with this capital.

ConclusionHouseholds are able to manage community reserves of grain: for this it is important to provide part of the infrastructure, supplies, training. To ensure sustainability there is a need for the participation of men and women in community groups and linking these with local authorities, institutions and organizations in the area.

Contact detailsGustavo Garcia, Agronomist, Emergency Rehabilitation and Coordination Unit, FAO Guatemala E-mail: gustavo.garcia@fao.org

Maria Gatica, Zootechnician, Emergency Rehabilitation and Coordination Unit, FAO Guatemala E-mail: maria.gatica@fao.org

Related resources that have been developedManual of good practices implemented by FAO Guatemala in an emergency context.

27

Hazard, Livelihood and Vulnerability Baseline in PakistanSummary and geographical coverageThis Hazard, Livelihood and Vulnerability (HLV) Baseline and Contingency Plan has been prepared to assist the district government, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society for effective disaster response. Pre-disaster information is always a vital resource in post disaster response (which includes post disaster assessments). When disaster strikes, it is critical to know how many people are likely to have been affected and how. This requires knowledge of the demographic breakdown of the population and the likely vulnerabilities of different people to the disaster. Vulnerability will determine how badly they would be affected, how quickly they can be expected to recover and what kind of assistance they

would need. This information can also be used to create livelihood based contingency plans, to be used in case of a natural disaster. The HLV process requires from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 8 weeks to be carried out in each district.

This good practice started as a pilot in 5 districts, from December 2007 until February 2009. A second phase of the activity was requested by the National Government started in 2010 and is ongoing.

The project was carried out in the following provinces and districts:

District Province

Badin Sindh

Tharparkar SindhRajanpur PunjabBagh Azad Jammuakashmir (AJK)Astore Gilgit BaltistanHaripur KPKGawadir Balochistan

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: Stemming from and responding to established national priorities, this intervention is part of the joint DRM programme of the ONE UN Program in Pakistan; in this context, the ongoing and active involvement of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) of the Governemnt of Pakistan has allowed the strengthening of their sense of ownership of project results.

Integration of DRR: Among the key elements of the HLV there is the history of hazards in the district, the frequency and severity of different hazards and the geographical areas where they strike. Complete baselines support more rapid and accurate post disaster assessments. The baseline can also serve as a basis for more in depth assessments and as a starting point for monitoring recovery.

Capacity development: The overall objective of this intervention is strengthen the ability of national, provincial and district level government, NGO and UN agencies to respond better to natural disasters. This is done by developing contingency plans tailored to the impact of natural disasters on different livelihood groups within a district. Inclusive planning: The project has developed an inclusive process for developing the baseline and contingency plan, involving consultations and participation with stakeholders such as Province, District and sub-disctrict officials, village level key informants, male and female focus groups. Pilot districts (and associated hazard type) were selected in close coordination with the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).

Stakeholders and partnersNational Disaster Management Authorities (NDMA), Provincial Disaster Management Authorities (PDMA), District governments (Agriculture and Disaster Management), UN agencies, NGOs and civil society. The main donors were the Swedish Government and the Early Recovery Cluster in Geneva.

28

Methodological approachThe HLV has been conducted through a highly participatory approach involving major stakeholders at district, tehsil and community levels. The HLV document consists of a wide range of information gathered from different sources using different methods. It is based on: 1) discussion with key informants at district level; 2) community-based focus groups with men and women; 3) review of statistical data at national, provincial and district level.

The key elements of the HLV are as follows: • General description of the district.• Hazard information: This shows the history of hazards in the district: the frequency and severity

of different hazards and the geographical areas where they strike. • Demographic information: The next element in the baseline is a description of the demographic

characteristics of the populations in the areas at risk. • Livelihood exposure and vulnerability profiling, which consists of five different elements:

(i) Identification and description of different livelihood zones (ii) Identification and description of wealth groups (iii) Quantification of these groups (iv) Identification of those persons most exposed to hazards (v) Identification of those persons most vulnerable to hazards

• Seasonal impact and response calendar: This shows the key livelihood activities undertaken in different geographical areas (village, tehsil, livelihood zone) over the year, how these are affected by different hazards and what that implies in terms of intervention types and timing.

• Response typologies: This gives likely scenarios in terms of numbers of people likely to be affected by moderate and severe hazards, together with probable livelihood support needs quantified and costed as much as possible.

• The team that carried out the HLV was formed by the team leader, a statistician and 2 experts in Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA), one male and one female.

ValidationThe representatives of NDMA, Government line agencies, UN agencies and NGOs showed their pro-active involvement in contributing to this document, and for this reason it constitutes a common assessment and should be used by all stakeholders as a key planning, preparedness and response tool.

ImpactThe HLV is a core component of the District Disaster Management Plan. In addition, it is also a useful document for planning for disaster preparedness, mitigation, and risk reduction and may be used by any interested stakeholder for these purposes. The HLV has been used to assist in post-flood response in 2008 (Rajanpur), the huge floods of 2010 and 2011 in Sindh. It allowed a more timely and accurate response, taking livelihood needs into account.

Innovation and success factors1) The HLV adds the livelihood element to contingency planning. It looks at the impact of hazards on

livelihoods and determines what needs to be in place to recover livelihoods. 2) The process has allowed the involvement of various stakeholders and the engagement of government’s

representatives, for data collection, at all levels (national, provincial and district level). This has created a sense of ownership and acceptance of the data by all.

3) The HLV strengthens existing mechanisms and fits into the broader DRM agenda led by the NDMA and UNDP.

ConstraintsThe main constraints were related to the quality and quantity of practitioners trained in this methodology. Funding is also a major constraint. Finally the inclusion and mainstreaming of gender issues needs further improvement.

29

Lessons learnedIt is extremely important to have an inclusive process. There is a need to work hard to institutionalise it. There is a need for awareness raising regarding the involvement of the government in the process.

SustainabilityThe elements that need to be put into place in order to ensure the sustainability of the HLV process are: a) a process of engagement with key stakeholders; b) training of government’s representatives, especially at district level, because of their active involvement in data collection; c) link with existing, ongoing government’s processes

UpscalingThe HLV has already been scaled up within Pakistan. There are also possibility to apply this tool to other disaster-prone countries, with decentralised administration.

ConclusionPre-disaster information is always a vital resource in post disaster response (which includes post disaster assessments). The HLV Baseline and Contingency Plan can assist district governments, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society for effective disaster response. This requires knowledge of the demographic breakdown of the population and the likely vulnerabilities of different people to the disaster. This information can also be used to create livelihood based contingency plans, to be used in case of a natural disaster.

Contact detailsNeil Marsland, Senior Technical Officer, Emergencies Division, FAO Rome E-mail: neil.marsland@fao.org

Faizul Bari, DRM Officer, FAO Pakistan E-mail: faizul.bari@fao.org

Related Web site(s)FAO Pakistan website: http://fao.org.pk/

Related resources that have been developedVolume 1 and 3 of the Livelihood Assessment Toolkit were developed as a result of the application of the HLV in Pakistan.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/tc/tce/pdf/LAT_Brochure_LoRes.pdf

30

Detailed Livelihoods Assessment: A tool for national recoverySummary and geographical coverageIn July 2010, torrential monsoon rains caused flooding of a significant magnitude affecting the entire length of Pakistan. More than 20 million people in 78 districts were affected and nearly 2 000 killed. The flood waters covered an area in excess of 100 000 square kilometres, destroying 1.6 million houses. One year after the floods, a Detailed Livelihood Assessment (DLA) was undertaken to investigate the status of household recovery and priorities for continued assistance.

The DLA had three objectives: • to evaluate the extent to which rural households have recovered from the 2010 floods in terms of

livelihoods and food security;• to give insights on the impact and effectiveness of interventions designed to support livelihoods and

food security recovery; and• to understand problems and issues which remain unresolved for livelihood recovery and the

implications for future programming.

The FAO-led DLA was carried out in the 28 worst flood affected districts in the four provinces of Balochistan (2 districts); KPK (10 districts); Punjab (7 districts) and Sindh (9 districts).

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMAs) have provided their input and technical advice in assessment design and assistance in the execution of the assessment survey. This has supported a sense of ownership of the data collected and the consequent activities based on the assessment results.

Integration of DRR: The household survey instrument was designed to collect information about the extent to which households had recovered from the 2010 floods and the extent of recovery and any outstanding needs. The survey also collected data to assess the vulnerability of the households to any future disaster.

Capacity development: Through the leadership of the agriculture cluster and later the sector working group, FAO Pakistan supported the NDMA to develop a national contingency plan for the agriculture sector, and supported PDMAs, and later provincial Agriculture Departments to undertake needs assessments (e.g. DLA and Gap Analysis) and to coordinate the humanitarian response.

Inclusive planning: Planning of the assessment has involved the national and provincial disaster management authorities. UN agencies and local agencies have also contributed to the elaboration of the questionnaire and implementation of the survey.

Stakeholders and partnersThe National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMAs) have provided their input and technical advice in assessment design and assistance in the execution of the assessment survey. The provincial governments, and particularly the Agriculture and Livestock Departments in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh, have provided valuable input in preliminary results-sharing workshops and provincial consultations. The World Food Programme (WFP) has provided financial support, technical input in the development of the main household questionnaire and assistance in training and analysis. Apex Consulting Pakistan has collected high quality information under challenging circumstances in the flood-affected areas of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh. Because of their hard work and perseverance, this survey has provided invaluable information to help better target and design the flood recovery process. UN Women and the Un Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has provided valuable support throughout the process. Various partner organizations have been also involved.

31

Methodological approachThe DLA was a multi-agency assessment carried out in the 28 worst flood-affected districts in the four provinces of Balochistan (two districts); Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (ten districts); Punjab (seven districts); and Sindh (nine districts). Data was collected by 41 teams drawn from over 20 organizations including FAO, international and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Apex consultancy company. It was an outcome of discussions between the National Disaster Management Authority and the Food Security Cluster. The discussions were led by the FAO-appointed Cluster lead and supported by the World Food Programme (Cluster co-lead) and Cluster members. The DLA was carried out by using three basic instruments: (i) a 9 000 household sample survey, (ii) male and female focus group discussions (FGDs; 250 in total), and (iii) livelihood asset case studies. Analysis of secondary data and a literature review complemented these core instruments. Information from these different sources was triangulated to substantiate key findings and conclusions.

DLA Triangulation Methodology

The household survey instrument was designed to collect information about the extent to which households had recovered from the 2010 floods, their level of satisfaction with the assistance received, the extent of recovery and any outstanding needs. The survey also collected data to assess the vulnerability of the households to any future disaster. In each district, FGDs were planned for female as well as for male participants. Male FGDs were targeted to include landowners, farmers with livestock and labourers. Female FGDs included livestock workers, crop labourers as well as off-farm workers. This diversity of participants was meant to solicit and record the views of a maximum number of rural livelihood groups. The objective of the case study-based livelihood analysis was to see how the livelihood assets of men and women had been affected by the floods since July 2010, and the extent to which they have recovered. For this purpose, a participatory livelihood asset pentagon methodology was used to document the changes in livelihoods over time.

ValidationThe DLA was a multi-agency assessment and for this reason it was validated with all the stakeholders involved.

ImpactThe DLA was the basis for the development of the response plan for the Rabi season (dry season), in Sindh and Balochistan, by the Food Security Cluster.

Gender Disaggregated

FGD

DLA

Literature Review

Gender Disaggregated

Livelihood Assets

Household Questionnaires

32

Innovation and success factorsThe good practice has contributed to the:

• involvement of all stakeholders;• inclusiveness and acceptance of the results supporting a sense of ownership of the data; and• the utilization of a big sample and the elaboration of a strong and clearly laid out analysis.

ConstraintsThe process took much longer than expected because of the following constraints:

• insufficient analytical capacity at country level;• required additional support from FAO HQ; and• insufficient ability of the consulting company to conduct data analysis.

Lessons learnedIt is important to keep the process as simple as possible in order to avoid the constraints related to insufficient analytical capacity at country level.

SustainabilityAll the methodological tools, including questionnaires, analysis programmes and tables, have been set up. This gives sustainability to the process and supporting upscaling interventions of the same initiative.

UpscalingA second phase of the DLA will be conducted in 2012 in 20 districts and will build on the DLA carried out in 2011.

ConclusionA number of conclusions can be drawn from a review of the key issues and needs as expressed by flood affected households. The pattern of priorities as at June / July suggests a rural population still very much in the recovery phase. Indeed the high level of priority given to construction materials and food aid 9 months after the floods is significant. Households expressed very clear views about how their needs will change over time. There was an expectation of continued recovery, less need for food aid and building material and more need for productive inputs and employment support. These findings should be useful in guiding continued recovery support in Punjab, KPK and those parts of Balochistan and Sindh which have not been adversly affected by the 2011 flooding.

Contact detailsNeil Marsland, Senior Technical Officer, Emergencies Division, FAO Rome E-mail: neil.marsland@fao.org

33

On-farm watercourse rehabilitation through Cash for WorkSummary and geographical coverageFAO focused on cleaning, rehabilitation and lining works of the most damaged and critical farmers-managed irrigation channels for immediate recovery of livelihoods of flood affected people in the three provinces of KP (12 districts), Punjab (6 districts) and Balochistan (4 districts) in Pakistan.

Stakeholders and partnersThe beneficiaries of the project were 70 000 flood affected households. Letters of Agreement were signed between FAO and On farm Water Management Departments in the affected Districts of KPK, Punjab and Balochistan Provinces. The targeted beneficiaries organized

themselves in small users groups or Water Users Associations (WUAs). Field execution arrangements were covered through Terms of Partnership signed among the Water Users Association, the District Officer, On-farm Water Management and FAO, stipulating the roles and responsibilities of each implementing partner. Major beneficiaries included a) the individuals who were CfW laborers; b) the water users (farmers and landowners with agricultural plots irrigated by the rehabilitated WCs); and c) their household members.

Watercourses rehabilitation through cash for work activities was implemented by national and international Service Providers (SP), selected by FAO and operating in the three provinces. The selected SPs were responsible for community mobilization, screening, selection, training and registration of Water Users Associations (WUAs), carrying out survey, design and cost estimation work and identification of material suppliers, and finally selection monitoring and payment of labourers. Overall PKR 313,832,923 (equivalent to USD 3.5 million) was paid to the beneficiary households for the work done.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: The involvement of all stakeholders in the rehabilitation process on one hand provided a sense of ownership to the affected communities as well as the possibility for establishing linkages with the concerned line departments for subsequent operations and maintenance, while on the other has availed government line departments the opportunity for re-building the damaged infrastructures in an emergency context.

Integration of DRR: Fast-running flood waters in this province brought boulders, rocks, and other debris into the WCs and fields in the highlands; there have also been huge deposits of silt in many areas, with much subsequent cracking within the WCs and seepage of water into the ground. Thus in these sites de-silting was called for.

Capacity development: Among the positive impacts of this intervention, the institutional capacity building provided through reactivation/creation of Water Users Associations is outstanding.

Inclusive planning: The local affected communities and line Government Agencies of the Province - such as the On-farm Water Management (OFWM) Department – were involved in the identification, assessment and rehabilitation process of damaged irrigation infrastructures through a participatory approach. The Agreement with On-farm Water Management Departments (OFWMD) in the affected Districts ensured that the de-silting and rehabilitation work be monitored and validated by OFWMD.

Market-based interventions: The standard CfW approach for rehabilitation of water courses was introduced in vast wide spread area for diversified systems, communities and expertise. Cash transfers were appreciated by the CfW beneficiaries, and this was accomplished in a timely and transparent way. Along with injecting cash into the communities, there have been many positive structural improvements made to the respective irrigation systems.

Methodological pproachThe targeted beneficiaries organized themselves in small users groups or Water Users Associations (WUAs). WUAs members participated in the construction process as skilled and unskilled labour and also provided land and water during construction works. In addition they voluntarily removed vegetation, trees and bushes impeding the rehabilitation of communal watercourses.

34

FAO holds the responsibility for the procurement and supply of construction materials.

A three tier monitoring system was established for quality and quantity control of works and inputs. It involved WUAs, OFWMs and FAO as follows.

• Water Users Associations received the construction materials from FAO suppliers and were responsible for maintaining proper record of the materials received, labour engaged and payment made to the labourers working on the rehabilitation of watercourses;

• the OFWM Department was responsible for quality, quantity and technical supervision of the rehabilitation works according to the approved specifications and standards of materials set as per manuals of watercourses design by the Federal Water Management Cell; and

• at field level FAO team, including Monitoring officers, Irrigation Engineers, Regional and Provincial Coordinators, closely worked with WUA, OFWM and material suppliers. The team supervised the rehabilitation work and guided all the stakeholders in quality construction work and rectifications of loopholes arising during construction work. Regular monitoring of project activities was carried out through FAO staff based in regional, provincial and national offices. Among the tasks undertaken, the FAO regional and provincial staff also facilitated the monitoring exercise carried out by the USAID-contracted monitoring and communication firm.

ValidationThe Agreement with OFWMD in the affected Districts ensured that the de-silting and rehabilitation work be monitored and validated by OFWMD. The Department also monitored and supervised the construction work and payments to the labourers working on the rehabilitation of watercourses.

ImpactThe project’s irrigation component enabled the de-silting of 1 068 critical on-farm communal irrigation infrastructures, allowing for an increase in crop and vegetable production. This intervention benefitted small-scale farmers willing to form Water Users Associations (WUAs), and served nearly 70 000 households in KP, Punjab and Balochistan.

Farmers benefitting from improvement in WCs, water availability, and subsequent increase in crop production include poor farmers, tenants, and sharecroppers—many of whom were also CFW laborers. In addition, farmers with larger plots of land along the WCs have reaped benefits. In focus group discussions in KPK, WUA members believed that the ones to benefit most from this project are the small farmers because they have only their small fields to support their households; in contrast, the richer farmers and landowners along the WCs have diversified livelihoods beyond agriculture, with household members working in Karachi or perhaps even abroad.

In spite of the timing problems, there were many positive changes in the livelihoods of these flood-affected vulnerable laborers and farmers and their family members resulting from these projects. Impacts have been in the areas of their financial, physical, and social assets. Only a few of these major changes include:

• increased cash income;• increases in the amount of irrigated land and crop yields;• equity achieved with small farmers at the WC tails now receiving sufficient water; and• institutional capacity-building through reactivation/creation of WUAs.

Innovation and success factorsThe key success factors were (i) the involvement of the OFWMD in the implementation of rehabilitation works, including identification of target watercourses, land demarcation, cutting of trees, lining of watercourses, etc.; and (ii) the implementation modality of the Cash for Work programme.

Constraints• The identified watercourses for the rehabilitation work were located in remote locations. Due to poor

road infrastructure, the supply of material to the rehabilitation sites was at times challenging.• Issues arisen during implementation of activities and related to land demarcation, cutting of trees and

alignment of watercourses were solved in consultation with WUAs and OFWMD.• The security situation in Pakistan and particularly in KP province was a significant challenge, but not

a hindrance, to the timely execution of project activities.• The mobility of service providers’ staff was limited in some areas due to diverse and extreme weather

35

conditions (i.e. monsoon and summer rainfall during the extension period of July-August 2011 and winter weather in the Northern part of the country during December 2011).

• In some instances, local irrigation materials suppliers faced challenges with meeting timely delivery requirements to identified project areas.

• A final constraint has been the poor availability of unskilled labour in some project areas due to the competitive income-generating opportunity provided by the sugarcane harvesting period.

Lessons learnedThe main lesson learned from this intervention was that to create a sense of participation and ownership among the community; Water User Associations should be fully involved in all the aspects of rehabilitation works, type of lining, decision making process of design and lining work of watercourses, execution of the construction work, monitoring and supervision.

SustainabilityThe creation of Water Users Associations and the involvement of all stakeholders in the rehabilitation process provided the affected communities the opportunity for organizing themselves and establishing linkages with the concerned line departments for subsequent operations and maintenance.

UpscalingGeographical upscaling of this good practice could enhance the preparedness and response capacity of flood prone countries with an agriculture based economy. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, out of the 400 watercourses de-silted, 281 were identified for further improvement of conveyance efficiency, utilizing unspent project funds in 2012.

ConclusionCleaning and rehabilitation of on-farm irrigation channels through 1 068 cash for work schemes was indispensable for the winter 2010/11 wheat crop, as well as crops planted in the spring 2011, particularly rice. These schemes were vital, as 92 percent of farmers reached in the response have irrigated land.

Contact detailsRajendra Aryal, Senior Emergency Coordinator, Islamabad, Pakistan E-mail: rajendra.aryal@fao.org

Julius Jackson, Operations Officer/Budget Holder, Pakistan Team Leader, TCES E-mail: julius.jackson@fao.org

Related Web site(s)http://www.fao.org/emergencies/country-information/list/asia/pakistan/en/OSRO/PAK/010/USA; OSRO/PAK/011/USA; OSRO/PAK014/USA

36

“Smallholder Commercialization Programme” (SCP) in Sierra LeoneSummaryThe vision of the Government of Sierra Leone is to make agriculture the engine for socioeconomic growth and development through commercial agriculture. More specifically, its aim is to provide short, medium and long term Investment Programmes to increase commercialisation of the sector and promote “farming as a business.” The Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP) is identified as the priority programme to delivery this goal. FAO has worked very closely to assist government of Sierra Leone to establish this national programme for food security funded by the Special Programme for Food Security of FAO.

Since emerging from a decade-long civil war in 2001, Sierra Leone has made substantial progress in its recovery, reconstruction and democratisation, Despite significant progress achieved since 2002 with regard to government and donor support to the resettlement and reconstruction of war affected communities, and rehabilitation of productive households and community assets, a significant proportion of the population still remain poor and vulnerable to food insecurity and high rates of malnutrition which summed up in the HDI ranking of Sierra Leone at the tail end of the 177 countries ranked.

There are an estimated five hundred thousand smallholder farming families or 3.5 million people dependent on smallholder agriculture 70 percent of these farmers are living below the poverty line on less than $1 a day. Prioritizing the development of smallholder farmers into small-scale commercial farmers as an entry point for agricultural development will drive progress towards national development . The SCP focused on achieving; food security, surplus production and integration into markets. National response measures therefore were needed to be implemented to ensure adequate access to food for the poor and vulnerable in both urban and rural areas especially women and children through appropriate mechanisms of social safety nets.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: The vision of the Government of Sierra Leone is to make agriculture the engine for socio-economic growth and development through commercial agriculture: the Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP) is identified as the priority programme to delivery this goal. The SCP is bringing about a shift of paradigm from subsistence agriculture to farming for business. The SCP has been declared the “flagship” programme of MAFFS. The political will of the Government at the highest level and the full support of all major donors in the agriculture and rural sectors for the SCP are conducive to the success and sustainability of the programme.

Capacity development: The focus for FAO’s support was put on community-based capacity building. It clearly indicated farmers’ training and farmers’ organizations as essential ingredients in enhancing rural families’ abilities to become self sufficient and self supporting. Various dimensions of food security were addressed through this programme, including policy development of “Right to Food Policy” and rapid capacity building for large-scale community-based field activities to get production moving in the post-war period.

Inclusive planning: The project is fully implemented with the MAFFS extension staff who are now being supported and trained to continue providing these services to the farming community.

Market-based interventions: The SCP is geared towards opening up economic opportunities for rural households in farming, value addition activities, trading and services thus making the rural areas more attractive also for youth and helping to stabilize peace in the country. The conceptual framework of Agricultural Business Centers (ABC) aims at establishing sustainable and selfgoverned farmer/producer associations equiped with agro-service facilities. The ABC, in link with rural intermediaries, provides their members and local farmers with essential services that support access to technology innovations. These services include bulking centres, inputs and outputs marketing, equipment renting, communication and technical advisory services for production and processing. 193 ABCs have been established.

Stakeholders and beneficiariesThe major stakeholders benefitting from the capacity building programme are:

• The farming communities mainly working through the Farmer Based Organizations (FBOs) and Agricultural Business Centres (ABCs) management targeted by the SCP. They will be strengthened in agricultural production, processing, storage, in the commercialization of their produce and in group

37

organization, leadership and management skills.• The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the embedded SCP Coordination and Technical

Team. • SCP Coordination Team will be strengthened in the guidance and supervision of the Technical Team

and the District Agricultural offices; in particular the M&E team including the Planning, Evaluation, Monitoring and Statistics Division (PEMSD) will be targeted.

• The Technical Team will be strengthened in the delivery of farmers’ training (Farmer Field Schools), the setting up and development of ABCs and ABC networks and the coordination of stakeholders at national and district level and the management of assets.

• The District Agricultural offices will be strengthened in the delivery of services especially those relevant for the running of ABCs such as agricultural production, processing, business development and M&E.

• Service providers working in complementarily to and in support of the governmental services have been engaged to optimize the delivery of particular competencies and skills to the FBOs and ABCs.

• Other stakeholders playing a crucial role along the value chains, include input suppliers and traders, will be involved.

The ultimate direct beneficiaries are resource poor farmers being involved in the SCP to improve their food security and livelihoods. While the whole of the farming community is targeted, a youth and gender balanced approach will be implemented improving women’s and youth’s involvement in decision making and access to resources.

The direct beneficiaries will be supported through the engagement of governmental and non-governmental service providers. This capacity building programme addresses current shortcomings in the delivery of services to the farming communities and other stakeholders upstream and downstream selected value chains. More precisely, the beneficiaries of the SCP are listed as follows:

• Smallholder farmers with less than 2 hectares and experiencing severe hunger period and food insecurity.

• Women, especially women-headed households, faced with both poverty and social exclusion. • Youths, particularly unemployed both male and female between 18 and 35 year-old, who had

dramatically suffered from the war. They suffer social and economic exclusion, which threatens social cohesion and often leads to rural migration.

• Associations of disable (amputees / war wounded, etc.) in various activities at district level.

Methodological approachThe programme is developed on the basis of a combined approach, implemented in three stages: Farmer Field Schools, Farmer Based Organizations and Agricultural Business Centres. The key of the approach is the consolidation of each concept independently enhanced by the linkages created within the three. In these lines, the farmer field school extension approach is the initial support for rural communities and small scale farming. The agricultural trainings incorporate demonstrations and dissemination of technologies while at the same time building group capacity to undertake various community-level actions. Cross cutting issues such as gender, nutrition, HIV, malaria, governance etc. are tackled at this stage to provide basic notions.

The next step is the identification and selection of farmer based organizations.

The SCP carried out a selection of FBOs to enter the program and receive the support for the creation of ABCs. The selection was judged following a set of criteria and final selection was undertaken based on competitive application within the district involving MAFFS and the District Councils. The selection criteria included the following:

(iv) well-established FBOs (FFS/ABU) registered and with elected leadership, including women representatives;

(v) have bank account (where possible);(vi) members in agreement with cost-sharing and in-kind contribution;(vii) at least 50 ha of lowland rice area given 10 year lease to ABC members;(viii) location within 1.67 km of an all-weather road or boat landing;(ix) within ABC Shop cluster area;(x) communities with existing stores and drying floor belonging to the communities that can be easily

used by the ABCs as input shops; and

38

(xi) villages with fairly large population of youths (both men and women) that can be engaged into auxiliary services.

The selected FBOs are linked to the creation of ABCs. The Agri-Business Centres (ABC) model refers to a multipurpose facility registered and operated as a private liability company/or a company limited by guarantee.

The majority of the FBOs are established after the war ended in (2002) and few existed during the period of the war. The national average size of the FBOs is in the range of 15 members to 2 015 members. The groups within districts consist of 34 percent to 73 percent percent of youths up to 35 years. Sixty (60 percent) percent of these FBOs were formed spontaneously and 11.5 percent and 13.3 percent each in response to specific projects and request by local government to strengthen peace, unity and development work and to enhance food security promotion within localities. Although ninety five (95 percent) percent of the FBOs had written constitutions or internal rules, about twenty nine (29 percent) percent are not registered with District Council or otherwise nationally. Mentions indicate that the majority (69 percent) percent of the FBOs conduct meetings monthly, 21 percent fortnightly and 10 percent weekly. Attendance of members to the meetings is rated encouraging. Thirteen percent (13 percent) of these meetings are however not documented.

Pyramid of combined approaches within the SCP

ValidationThe SCP has been validated by both government and other stakeholders in relation to its relevance, and sustainability in promoting commercialization of smallholder agriculture through increasing productivity, intensification and value addition and how they are expected to mobilize farmer and government support in the long term. Key issues during the validation process include the following:

(i) the project’s approach is working to strengthen the management structures of the farmer field schools, FBOs and ABCs to take on the responsibility of ensuring the benefits are sustainable beyond the life of the EUFF project; and

(ii) the project is supporting ABC management with a view to eventually allowing them to become private limited liability companies with full autonomy to run the affairs of the ABC on behalf of the farmers after the end of the project.

ImpactOverall impacts from the project include higher yields in FFS groups (and villages where they are located), leading to increased food security among participants and in communities. This largely stems from improved agricultural practices and in some FFS new machinery and tools to enhance farming. Subsequent initiatives that have emerged from this project include the formation of Agriculture Business Units (ABUs) in communities (which often come together to form FBOs), as well as the establishment of Agriculture business centres (ABCs), which contribute to improving the commercial development of farmers and linking them to the market economy. The benefit groups are gender balanced throughout the approach, women and men are targeted in the farmer field schools, in the farmer based organization and particularly in the agricultural business centres. The labour saving machinery and other facilities provided at processing level by the ABC are resources that specially enhance the final stage of the value chain.

39

Additionally, the impact is noted at different levels:(i) social, poverty and demographic indicators to reach the most vulnerable wards/communities;(ii) complementarities with ongoing and planned government and Donor initiatives;(iii) potential for poverty reduction and employment creation;(iv) potential for the production of crops and value addition; and(v) the development orientation of local institutions.

These indicators have been priority for the geographical targeting of the Chiefdoms and Wards undertaken by the District Agricultural Offices with the technical assistance of the Programme.

Table 3: Gender distribution within the ABC members

Name of district Number of ABCAverage membership

Average male Average female Total averageKenema 18 119 82 201Kailahun 15 39 60 99Kono 15 85 91 176Bo 17 55 50 105Pujehun 15 60 39 99Moyamba 17 93 77 170Bonthe 11 124 77 201Bombali 18 82 86 168Tonkolili 17 98 82 180Kambia 15 51 61 111Port Loko 15 73 59 132Koinadugu 15 92 128 220Western Area 5 54 59 167National Average/ABC 193 79 73 152

Innovation and success factorsAgriculture is high on the agenda which is underscored by the creation of a Presidential Task Force for Agriculture. Of the total 2009 GDP, agriculture contributed about 46.1 percent. About two-thirds of the population live in rural areas and about 70 percent live below the poverty line, most in severe poverty. About 60percent of the youth is either unemployed or under-employed.

The SCP is bringing about a shift of paradigm from subsistence agriculture to farming for business. This is extremely ambitious given the low educational level in rural areas and the traditional background of the people. The SCP is geared towards opening up economic opportunities for rural households in farming, value addition activities, trading and services thus making the rural areas more attractive also for youth and helping to stabilize peace in the country. At the same time it will support the Government in attaining food self-sufficiency and increase exports of agricultural commodities.

40

Graph 1: Number of ABCs in Sierra Leone

ConstraintsWhile it is recognized that the MAFFS has made great strides in increasing its capacity and efficiency at all levels, MAFFS capacity is still limited to fully support the accelerated development and commercialization of the agricultural sector.

There are several reasons for this: the effect of the war is still felt, when well trained people left the country and only few returned; many professionals of the MAFFS have approached or are approaching retiring age; few new recruitments were made over the past ten years; Ministry employees are attracted to work with the private sector and recent large scale investments in agriculture absorb many experienced professionals; the opportunities for young professionals for higher studies are rare; curricula of higher education institutions are partly outdated. In addition, new challenges coming with the commercialization of smallholder agriculture are not yet fully integrated into service delivery.

This contributes to weak extension and agricultural technical services, weak business development know-how and skills and a lack of management and leadership training of institutions at centralized and decentralized levels including at target group level. Other constraints have been identified within the SCP integrated approach. For instance, at ABC level, there are major issues that still constitute a challenge to their functioning.

Graph 2: Constraints at ABC level

SustainabilityThe exit strategy of the project is to build self-reliant and self-governed FBOs and ABCs with profitable income generating activities including production, processing and marketing dimensions. The most successful ones are expected to pay for services they require for their upkeep in the future. The economically less successful

41

ones will still play an important role in labour saving techniques in cultivation and processing and deliver some basic services to the communities. At the end of the project, the Government will not have recurrent commitments to the beneficiaries and the beneficiaries will become long-term human resources for the delivery of services to their communities. Besides, the capacity development programmes significantly increase the likelihood of sustainability.

The elements needed to ensure that the good practice is established in the long-term, without putting the project at risk, are the following:

• MAFFS and DAO offices are staffed according to plan;• DAO working conditions are improved according to need (office space and condition, energy, mobility,

communication, equipment, material, finances);• DAO offices are adequately supported by the District Councils, the SCP Management Team and

MAFFS HQ;• other SCP components (rural finance, feeder roads, and safety networks) will be implemented as

planned to support the achievement of the SCP objectives;• fluctuation of personnel is not detrimental to the performance of the institutions involved in GAFSP;• economic conditions are conducive for the success of the ABCs;• political interference is not a hindrance to effective project implementation; and• elite capture of benefits is contained.

Lessons learnedThe implementation of field monitoring and evaluation has been essential to the development of quantitative and qualitative reports, where situational analysis contributes to knowledge creation. Some of the lessons learnt here mentioned have been provided by these field reports9.

• There is need to focus on community sensitization and FBO development. ABC formation process (farmer mobilization into group, farmer school training, graduating FFS into FBO, FBO mobilization to form ABC) needs to be re-enforced in the next three years as this is a required foundation to ensure ABC performance.

• Introduce the ABC concept in the FFS training sessions to prepare farmers for this initiative.• There is a need to do a thorough analysis of enterprises profitability compare to the capital cost of• the ABCs to determine break even points.• Building strong inter ABC connections to allow for experience sharing, movement of available

resources, networking at the District level and improved partnership.• Emphasis should be placed on productivity at the FBO and ABC levels to fully make use of the

available machines and equipments.• Exchange visit within the country to best performing ABCs for lesson leaning and outside the country

for capacity building can go a long way to facilitate ABC overall performance.• Training Facilitators from among FBOs to make their services readily available to their members.• Ensure the Board is set away from the management team as this will improve governance.

The structures must be provided with sufficient capacity building.• For IVS rice ABCs, there is need for their member FBOs to be closely tied with well developed Inland

Valley Swamps as this will facilitate multiple cultivation of the rice and subsequently other needed fast growing and income generating crops.

• Expand the focus of all business plans to further diversify income generation for economic sustainability of the ABCs. Consider the inclusion of:

– Short term sustainability goal: annual crop produce and the sales of other basic household commodities

– Medium term sustainability goal: livestock and fish farming – Long term sustainability goal: development of tree crops i.e. ashew, oil palm, moringa and rubber

plantation

9 Capacity assessment of the Agricultural Business Centres (ABC). February 2012. Report by Omotayo D. Alabi and Sagestine L. Gandi (consultants for FAO Sierra Leone)

42

UpscalingThere are four stages that make up the ABC concept. These are:

• Inception – Community resource study; FBOs formed and Registered• Expansion – Enterprise selected; Construction of ABC; Management staff identified and trained• Consolidation – ABCs form limited liability companies; bulk sourcing and marketing• Phase out – Visionary planning; networks formed, huge resource mobilization; cross cutting issues

Through these stages, the programme will determine the pace at which the different FBOs and ABCs will be ‘graduating’ and upscaling gradually in a manner that provides incorporation of key lessons learned and good practices.

ConclusionThe strategy of the of the SCP resulted from an innovative integrated approach that combined the support of production increase (through the distribution of improved agricultural inputs and machinery complemented by the delivery of extension services) with the enhancement of agricultural production processing and marketing capacities at the rural community level (through the implementation and strengthening of the national ABC network). Beyond contributing to mitigating the effects of the 2008 food price crisis, the intervention contributed to creating a solid basis and experience for further developing the agriculture sector towards commercial farming. Processes at the management and technical levels have been developed and are being assessed and constantly improved, and are now firmly integrated in the MAFFS’ organizational set-up. The exit strategy of the SCP was and is to build self-reliant and self-governed FBOs and ABCs with profitable income generating activities, including production, processing and marketing dimensions. The most successful ABCs are expected to pay for the services they require for their upkeep in the future. The economically less successful ones will still play an important role in labour saving techniques in cultivation and processing and deliver some basic services to the communities. Short and medium term responses should focus on employment opportunities in all sectors as well as ensuring adequate availability of food in the country, especially through increasing domestic production and supplies as international markets are quite limited and increasingly a burden on foreign exchange.

Strengths: – Conducive government policies – Increasing demand for locally produced food stock. There is an opportunity to create market

outlets for smallholders – ABCs will have the opportunity to ensure value addition at smallholder level – They can link smallholders to commercial entrepreneur – The opportunity to promote new agricultural and business initiatives and or innovations

Opportunities: – ABCs have access to agricultural land and other natural resources within their environment that

can be utilized to the best of their advantage – Available human resources including labour with a strong social network and defined leadership

structure – Available local knowledge within the membership of the ABC on farming conditions generally and

on specific crops in particular – There is an expressed enthusiasm and willingness to undertake ABC activities as a group – The ABC membership has time as the ABC set up is within their livelihood

Weaknesses: – The Project has not focused much on the operations of the ABCs but more on infrastructural

development. The trend is seen continuing – Animation to ensure re-enforced extension services support is seen weak – There is low level of awareness on the concept, objectives and implementation strategies of the

ABC, both at the community and at the frontline extension levels – Capacity of ABCs in production and management is weak – The ownership has not been built much to venture for further development

43

Threats: – Elite capture. This means that influential people can capture the ABC thus limiting the reach of

the majority – Risk of conflict between members especially for ABCs that are formulated without going

through the due process – farmer group mobilization, farmer field school training, Farmer based Organization established and then ABCs of FBOs

– ABCs likely to be politicized thus losing the real sense including ABCs to be located outside potential areas to satisfy political request

Contact details: Gabriel Rugalema, Representative, FAO Sierra Leone E-mail: gabriel.rugalema@fao.org

David Mwesigwa, Head Programme Implementation Unit Contact E-mail: david.mwesigwa@fao.org

Related website and resources that have been developedhttp://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index.asp?lang=en&iso3=sle

• ABC Capacity resource Assessment. FAO, GASFP Project 2012. By Omotayo D. Alabi and Sagestine L Gandi (FAO Consultants)

• ABC Yield Assessment. MAFFS, PEMSD

44

Upscaling and promotion of Conservation Agriculture (CA) in ZimbabweSummary and geographic coverageConservation Agriculture (CA) is defined as a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that strives to achieve acceptable profits, high and sustained production levels while concurrently conserving and sustaining the environment. It is based primary on the interaction of the three principles namely minimum mechanical soil disturbance (options are planting basins, rippers, direct seeders, jab planters and dibble sticks), permanent organic soil cover or mulch and diversified crop rotations and interactions in case of annual crops or plant associations in case of perennial crops.

FAO started implementing CA project in 2007 where it was promoted increased productivity of communal farmers through advanced land use and management practices (focusing on CA). The main challenges to be addressed were low productivity, low draft animal ownership, improvement of soil fertility and structure and market linkages culminating in increased crop productivity and improved livelihoods for the smallholder farmers. The major minimum soil disturbance option promoted was planting basins since the target groups had limited access to animal draft power and crop rotations and mulching introduced in subsequent years.

Currently CA is being promoted and encouraged to any farmer who is willing to practice despite their socio-economic status. The promotion CA has resulted in the improvement in productivity of mainly staple crops such as maize, groundnuts, sugarbeans and cowpeas and the intensification of production on a small piece of land thereby circumventing the challenges of inadequate land ownership by both men and women.

This intervention has been carried out in all the eight provinces of the country covering 21 districts.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: There is a CA taskforce (co-chaired by FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development) in Zimbabwe where all stakeholders involved in the practice meet regularly (bi-monthly) to discuss, refine/moderate and advance research or enhance understanding of the different principles of CA as stated above as well as serve as a validation platform for the technology. There is also a national CA booklet which was developed under the same auspices for use by all practitioners in CA and which also serve as a reference manual for the practice within the Zimbabwean context. There is a Zimbabwe CA strategy developed and launched recently, including the development of a CA curriculum currently in use by agricultural colleges.

Integration of DRR: Where climate change models indicate less favorable climatic conditions in the decades to come, the viability of agriculture as a livelihood is being challenged. Clearly, smallholder agriculture needs to adapt to these changes to remain a viable livelihood. In Zimbabwe, agricultural rehabilitation interventions have successfully used CA to respond to the challenges of unpredictable rainfall and declining soil fertility.

Capacity development: Farmer Field School and Lead Farmer approaches have been adopted as sustainable ways of guaranteeing appropriate adoption of CA. Establishment of CA demonstration plots also enables farmers to receive extension messages and learn new developments such as CA mechanization.

Inclusive planning: FAO has been collaborating with Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development on issues related to training, extension and beneficiary selection. Simultaneously FAO has worked with implementing partners (NGOs, Research Institutions-CGIAR centres, Training institutions) on design, stakeholder identification and selection, implementation, coordination, training, research and development, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and administration of the program.

Market-based interventions: Creating an enabling environment that fosters links between public and private partners for extension, training and research is important, as is supporting market-oriented approaches for input and output marketing, like bank loans, micro-financing and contract farming arrangements.

Stakeholders and partnersThere is an equal chance of participation in CA and related programmes by both men and women and group concept is encouraged when implementing these programmes. This concept redistribute the labour requirements amongst group members taking into cognisance of different gender roles and there are some

45

easier tasks that can be assigned to older members amongst the group. This results in less drudgery aversion by beneficiary or target farmers as the inherent perception on CA requiring high labour units during the early years is addressed by the group concept and clear definition of gender roles.

This intervention has been funded by the European Commission as well as Spanish and Swedish Cooperation. FAO has been collaborating with Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development on issues related to training, extension and beneficiary selection. Simultaneously FAO has worked with implementing partners (NGOs, Research Institutions-CGIAR centres, Training institutions) on the following: design, stakeholder identification and selection, implementation, coordination, training, research and development, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and administration of the program. Private Sector Companies have provided inputs, training and extension to farmers while also buying produce from farmers. Farmers Unions have been in charge of the implementation and lobbying farmers. Finally local farmers have been beneficiaries and users of the CA technology.

Methodological approachOn the onset of the projects, CA was introduced as part of efforts to increase productivity for the HHs who received free input support. However, there was a realisation that when support is withdrawn then CA practicing decreases also and hence an agreement was reached at the CA taskforce to disconnect input provision and CA practise. This resulted in Farmer Field School and Lead Farmer approaches being adopted as sustainable ways of guaranteeing appropriate adoption of CA. Establishment of CA demonstration plots also enables farmers to receive extension messages and learn new developments such as CA mechanization, which is something being introduced at the moment.

At these demonstration sites, gender concerns come into play as training timetables have to be agreed by all (consensus on starting and ending times) and giving women adequate time to first attend to household chores or activities then convene as the whole group at appropriate times. Cereals and legumes based and sometimes cash crops like cotton are the main crop rotation crops in CA. Generally in the smallholder sector in Zimbabwe legume crops are regarded as women crops primarily to cover the nutrition and small cash income aspects of the household whilst cereals and other cash crops are regarded as men crops.

ValidationThe validation is an ongoing process as research centres consistently provide evidence based insights into the three principles and ICRISAT has been conducting a panel study for the past four seasons on the merit and / demerits of CA including basin size study and also CYMMIT has been doing on farm and on station trials on CA tillage systems. The results of these studies are shared through the taskforce and serve as principal guidelines to refine the principles of CA. Farmers also test the technology on their plots together with implementing partners and also provide their insights on its merits and demerits, KAP surveys on farmers opinion.

ImpactCA techniques have cut down on labour and production costs per hectare. Farmers are encouraged to apply micro-doses of fertilizers, and tilling costs are low. Farmers, working in groups, are assigned jobs based on their ability, age and gender. Those with limited or no animal draught power have been able to prepare and plant their fields in time for the rains. Women, who make up about 60 percent of the farmers attending the trainings, are generally responsible, along with children, for weeding plots – a labour-intensive task. But mulching has reduced the amount of weeding needed. The training timetables are agreed on by everyone in the group so as not to conflict with other household chores and activities.

The practising of CA in the communal areas has seen crop production levels for households practising it gradually improving even for those who do not own any animals for draft power and on average around 2mt/ha of maize and 600kg/ha of legumes. With the advent of CA and particularly hand hoe made planting basins, even those with limited access to animal draft power are able to prepare their fields on time and plant with the first effective rains since they no longer have to wait for animal draft from neighbours and relatives.

Mulching suppress weeds germination hence reduce weeding pressure in the CA fields. This reduction in turn relieves women and children of the hard work as this is normally done by them. However, because of the common grazing systems in the communal areas, not enough mulch is retained in the unfenced plots. Environmentally CA reduces soil erosion and help reclaim the degraded land through improvements in soil fertility. Early planting and utilising the first effective rains also enable farmers practicing CA to reduce the impact of climate variability which is currently being experienced in Zimbabwe. Through adoption of CA the total variable costs per hectare are reduced significantly in subsequent years as micro dosing of fertiliser is encouraged and tillage costs are low even when CA machinery is used as some operations such as ploughing, discing, harrowing are not part of the technology.

46

Innovation and success factorsSome farmers remove their mulch from the fields and store it on cribs or house roofs and then put it back onto the fields during planting time. Some farmers cut grasses, twigs, and gather dry leaves and apply these to their fields as mulch. This reduces the threat of being grazed by livestock when left in the field. On making planting basins, farmers have resorted to work in groups, say ten to fifteen in one field until they are through with all members’ fields. This spreads workload and reduces drudgery as defining of roles depend on ability, age and gender. Some farmers start making the planting basins well on time around July thereby spreading labour until planting time in November and those with animals are now using CA equipments such as direct seeders or planters and rippers. In cases of rippers, farmers are modifying or converting their mould board plough into a ripper simply by attaching the ripper tine to the plough beam. There are farmers who do not throw away the thinned plants (as this is a requirement) but rather transplant them elsewhere and experiment on their success.

For the CA technologies to be successfully up scaled investment support in terms of training infrastructure, CA machinery and extension should be intensified and programmes should be multi year to allow for the full benefits to be realised during their duration.

Constraints• Labour for land preparation, basin digging and weed management is high in the early years of

practicing CA. There is need to introduce CA machinery and use of chemical for weed control.• Addressing negative perception and attitude towards CA: some stakeholders still feel CA is labour

intensive, is pro poor and its counter development technology (as it focus on traditional approaches/ principles). This can be addressed through Introducing CA to better off farmers, encourage CA machinery use and awareness workshops.

• Adaptability of CA, i.e farmers practising at least one principles or modifying the technology yet maximum benefits are realised from a combination of the three principles? There is need to encourage feasible and practical practicing of the three principles.

• Some CA machinery is too heavy and not appropriate for use by women. Machinery design should improve the ergonomics (the relationship between user and implement).

• CA machinery not readily available and affordable (currently only a few companies are producing them and there are still pricey compared to the imports). Research and development should focus on coming up with cheaper ways of producing these machinery.

• Shortage of draught power in the smallholder sector to guarantee success of mechanisation drive. Need for more livestock programmes.

• Farmers expect free inputs to practice CA. This can be addressed through introducing CA to better off farmers and also as part of subsidised programmes.

Lessons learnedThe key messages and lessons are :

• CA applies to all farmers irregardless of their socio-economic status;• if CA is practiced or adopted appropriately then yield increases are guaranteed but in the medium to

long term;• promotion of CA together with input support is counter adoption as farmers generally stop when

support is withdrawn;• high labour requirements in CA in the early stages can be addressed through introduction and adoption

of mechanised systems; and• continuous extension support guarantees sustainable adoption even when external support is

withdrawn.

SustainabilityFor sustainability to be guaranteed in the long term there is need for:

• an enabling environment that fosters synergies between public and private partners and improvements in extension, training and coordination of CA programmes and projects;

• increased support to pro market orientation approaches both at input and output marketing (including contract farming arrangements, micro finance institutions and bank loans);

• improved investment in CA mechanisation to reduce drudgery and improve the technology adoption;

47

• coordinated appropriate research and development; and• operational policy framework and Institutionalisation of CA at all levels.

There is also need to attract and establish sustainable funding and funding mechanisms respectively.

UpscalingThere is considerable room to scale up conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. FAO co-chairs the conservation agriculture task force with Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development, meeting regularly with all stakeholders to discuss, refine and advance research on conservation agriculture. Promoting the country’s recently launched conservation agriculture strategy, incorporating resource mobilization, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, can help consolidate the work of the task force, and lead the country’s scaling up efforts.

According to Government statistics, about 300 000 communal farmers in Zimbabwe are practicing conservation agriculture and about 5 percent of the maize-growing area is under conservation agriculture. By intensifying training and outreach activities, including setting up farm demonstration sites, more farmers throughout the country can learn correct conservation agriculture techniques. Improvements need to be made in the domestic manufacturing and availability of conservation agriculture machinery, equipment and implements to meet farmers’ demand. Efforts should also focus on mainstreaming conservation agriculture in government policies and programmes and positioning it within current donor funding frameworks and thematic issues like food security, climate change, sustainable rural livelihoods and aid effectiveness.

ConclusionAdoption of CA results in stabilised yields and increases in soil fertility and crop production in the medium to long term. CA applies to all farmers irregardless of their socio-economic status. There is need for improved training and extension in CA to address knowledge gaps at extension worker and farmer level. Sustainable land management practices including CA contribute to environmental resilience. Continuous extension support guarantees sustainable adoption even when external support is withdrawn.

Contact detailsBrighton Nhau, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: brighton.nhau@fao.org

Felix Dzvurumi, Crops Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: felix.dzvurumi@fao.org

Karsto Kwazira, Conservation Agriculture Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: karsto.kwazira@fao.org

Sepo Marongwe, Conservation Agriculture Coordinator, Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development E-mail: sepo.marongwe@fao.org

Related Web site(s)Most of the information is available on the www.acwg.co.zw/CA website and some partners websites. Current projects including a CA component are OSRO/ZIM/907/EC; OSRO/ZIM/103/SWE

For a comprehensive overview of conservation agriculture technologies more information is available in the TECA database: http://teca.fao.org/

Related resources that have been developed• A CA manual was developed, produced and distributed to different stakeholders in CA in the country. • A second edition CA manual (which included CA mechanization and budgets) was also developed

and is currently being finalised. More than 4 000 CA posters were produced and distributed. • CA curriculum for all agricultural colleges produced and currently in use.• CA pamphlets and training guidelines are being produced and will be distributed widely to all

stakeholders including farmers. • There is also a video on CA and banana production produced by one of the projects which ended in

2010. Website: www.acwg.co.zw/CA

48

Commercialization of egg production in the smallholder sector of ZimbabweSummary and geographical originThe poultry resource is already available in the smallholder communities (over 80 percent ownership) but not much concerted effort has been put in place to harness its high productivity potential in order to address household food and financial security issues. Currently very few small holder farmers are participating in commercial egg production because of lack of knowhow and limited market linkages.

FAO is piloting the egg production model to demonstrate how the farmers can participate in commercial livestock farming to generate income through planned production and marketing in six districts. project started in May

2011 and is on-going. However full benefits are still to be realized when the production cycle is completed. The cage system is giving good results and is now on high demand. To date there are indications that there is improved cash income and diversified protein sources in the project areas. Beneficiaries are increasing their production units through purchases and or production from the initial supplies from the project. The agricultural extension system has become more responsive because of the business nature of the interventions. The project has provided for equal opportunity for participation by both female and male beneficiaries. The egg production model is less labour intensive and can be managed well by female farmers as well. The average male to female ratio across the projects is 41 percent to 59 percent. This intervention has been carried out in the following districts: Hurungwe, Guruve, Goromonzi, UMP, Mutasa and Umzingwane.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingCapacity development: Proper training in the husbandry and health management as well as marketing issues through commodity associations are key activities of this intervention. Farmers still need to be trained to negotiate and enter into marketing contracts for targeted production and sustainability. Farmers need regular training and refresher courses on everything from best practices in egg production to business skills to negotiating of marketing contracts. The capacity of Government extension staff needs to be strengthened.

Inclusive planning: Design of interventions, stakeholder identification and training has been realised in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development and a local NGO. Local farmers have been hosting and managing the production units at their homesteads.

Market-based interventions: The project is facilitating the establishment of linkages between farmers and input and output dealership to ensure viability and sustainability. Egg production provides regular household income that improves cash-flow for at least one year. Commercial egg production in Zimbabwe not only provides regular income to households but contributes to a diversified diet. Both men and women are involved in the business. The cage system, in particular, is in demand as it provides good results and reduces the risk of disease to the birds. Demand for eggs is good and farmers have been able to earn an average of USD 42 per month from the egg enterprise alone. This has encouraged them to expand their production, either by buying more point of lay birds or by raising broiler birds to sell meat to boost cash flows for reinvestment. Commodity associations have been set up at various project sites, helping to facilitate the pooling of resources, marketing of produce and training in layer bird husbandry. The project is also promoting a savings culture among rural farmers. Many farmers have opened bank accounts and are now developing budgets and longer-term plans for their businesses and household needs.

Stakeholders and partnersFarmers who have minimum resources to participate in a commercial venture of egg production were targeted. Such criteria included having stocks of the maize grain, and or fowl pen to raise at least 20 layer birds. This intervention has been funded by the European Commission. FAO has been collaborating with Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development on issues related to training ,extension and beneficiary selection. Simulatneously FAO has worked with a local NGO on the following: Beneficiary selection and Project activity implementation and coordination including linkage to input and output dealers, Project monitoring.

Methodological approachCommercial egg production is possible through the use of hybrid birds that can be reared in various climatic conditions. It is less capital and labour intensive and it can be easily be integrated with other livestock and

49

crop enterprises thus adding value to subsistence farming. At present Zimbabwe is importing table eggs and exporting day-old layer chicks yet there is untapped production capacity in our smallholder sector. It is against this background that the egg production model was picked on for piloting in the smallholder sector of Zimbabwe. To kick-start egg production, FAO provides farmers with the initial point of lay birds – hens that are typically 21 weeks – egg trays, egg layer concentrate to mix with grain, water troughs and essential drugs. Farmers, on the other hand, provide the fowl pens, maize grain and labour. The project is testing and assessing two different production systems – intensive (cage) and semi-intensive (deep litter). Farmers contributed on the housing, maize grain and labour. FAO provided the initial point of lay birds, layers concentrate, egg trays, feed and water troughs as well as the essential drugs to kick start the enterprise. The model units range from a six-bird up to 100-bird unit on cage or deep litter rearing systems on individual or group approach. This model is being carried out in six districts extending to 751 households of which 442 are females and 309 males.

ValidationIndependent midterm review of the model by a consultant was conducted in February 2012. Review workshops by all stakeholders are planned for the first half of 2012.

ImpactCommercial egg production in Zimbabwe not only provides regular income to households but contributes to a diversified diet. Both men and women are involved in the business. The cage system, in particular, is in demand as it provides good results and reduces the risk of disease to the birds. Farmers have been able to expand their production, either by buying more point of lay birds or by raising broiler birds to sell meat to boost cash flows for reinvestment. Farmers are also using the manure from the layer birds for their food crops. Commodity associations have been set up at various project sites, helping to facilitate the pooling of resources, marketing of produce and training in layer bird husbandry. The project is also promoting a savings culture among rural farmers. Many farmers have opened bank accounts and are now developing budgets and longer-term plans for their businesses and household needs.

Innovation and success factorsFarmers now have a steady cash-flow and as such have opened bank accounts and can now plan and budget for the regular income. Most have developed long term plans for the development of their enterprises as well as household needs. Some beneficiaries have established complimentary enterprises aimed at boosting the capacity of the egg enterprises, such as broiler production being run alongside the layers in order to raise cash to recapitalize the egg unit. The commodity associations to establish own input/output outlets for the convenience of its members. Savings clubs have been formed to facilitate the expansion of the egg enterprise as well improve on the farmers’ asset base. The organization of farmers into commodity associations and or committees is essential for them to facilitate pooled resource mobilization and marketing of their produce. Strong linkages with point of lay birds suppliers need be put in place in order for the farmers to replace the aging layers at the right stage so that they do not lose the market. Stockfeed and drug input dealership should be brought closer to the farmers through input/output market linkages facilitated by the commodity associations. Integration and or collaboration of farmer groups that are engaged in complimentary enterprises e.g. CA and egg farmers.

ConstraintsNot having a ready supply of point of lay birds is one of the project’s biggest challenges as it derails momentum. Farmers need to be able to replace aging layer birds at the right stage so as not to lose the market. Stronger links with the day-old layer chick producers is vital. Another constraint is location. Stock feed and veterinary drugs are usually in urban centres, which can make it difficult for rural farmers to get what they need, when they need it. Local agrodealers are being encouraged to supply egg production inputs at competitive prices to help stimulate enterprise growth. Also, urban markets are not necessarily the best option for smallholder farmers because of transport, packaging, commission and selling costs.

Lessons learnedFarmers, seeing tangible results from the pilot project, have been motivated to scale up their egg production enterprises to meet market demand. Agricultural extension systems have become more responsive thanks to the business nature of producing eggs. Egg production is less capital and labour intensive and can be easily integrated with most other farming ventures. Hybrid birds can be reared in various climatic conditions. There has been a considerable ripple effect; farmers outside of the project have taken up commercial egg production, forming groups for training and other activities.

SustainabilityReliable sources of good quality inputs have to be established in the locality. In one of the districts the commodity association has established its own input and output outlet for the convenience of its members. Commodity associations should be further capacitated to have functional constitutions that enable them

50

to do formal business with agro-service suppliers including marketing contracts. Farmer training should be on-going and include refresher courses. The government extension staff needs be capacitated to do this in terms of training resources and transport. Reliable sources of finance should be available for the farmers to continue on and grow this egg business

UpscalingThere has been a phenomenal uptake of the commercial egg production in all the areas the model has been established. The demand for eggs in the communities is good and production to meet market demands can be done. The existence of reliable input suppliers in the localities would stimulate the enterprise. The enterprise is not capital intensive yet the returns are satisfactory compared to traditional cropping. Egg production can be integrated with most other farming enterprises and both men and women have equal opportunity to engage in this enterprise.

ConclusionIncome-generating projects with quick returns can go a long way to improving the livelihoods of farmers andcommunities in Zimbabwe. There has been great uptake of commercial egg production in the pilot project areas. Now it is important to keep that momentum going. Stock feed and drug input dealerships need to be brought closer to the farmers through input and output market linkages facilitated by the commodity associations. Efforts should be made to integrate or collaborate with other farmer groups engaged in complimentary enterprises, like conservation agriculture. And, it is important that farmers have reliable financing sources so they can continue to grow their egg businesses.

Contact detailsFrank Chinembiri, Livestock Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: frank.chinembiri@fao.org

Elma Sikala, Livestock Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: elma.sikala@fao.org

Basil Mugweni, Livestock Technical Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: basil.mugweni@fao.org

Related Web site(s)http://www.acwg.co.zw

51

Promoting input/output marketing through contract farmingSummary and geographic coverageZimbabwe experienced a period of long economic recession from 2000/2008. This was characterized by macro-economic and political challenges; collapse of formal marketing channels, unavailability of key inputs and high prices. This adversely affected agricultural production.

In the 2010/11 agricultural season FAO implemented a contract farming project targeting small-holder farmers. The contract farming project is in the second year, and now covers a bigger geographical area. Contract farming has served as a mechanism to reduce marketing and transaction costs, price risks and other negative

externalities facing smallholder farmers, enabling them to benefit from demand-driven growth in high-value agriculture. Under contract farming FAO provides 50 percent of the input requirements on a loan basis to farmers through the companies, in addition to funding for capacity building, implementation, paying for specialist agronomists and monitoring and evaluation. The companies have to provide the balance of the inputs. The input costs are recovered from the famers when they sell produce. During the 2010/11 season 3 797 farmers participated in contract farming, while 14 902 are participating in the current season. Both men and women have equal opportunities to benefit from the project.

The Project has been carried out in the following provices and districts:

Province DistrictMashonaland Central Bindura, Guruve, MazoweMashonaland East Goromonzi, Marondera, Mutoko, WedzaManicaland Nyanga, Mutasa, Makoni, Chimanimani, ChipingeMatabeleland North Hwange, Binga, LupaneMatabeleland South Umzingwane, Gwanda, InsizaMashonaland West Karoi, Kadoma, Mhondoro-NgeziMasvingo Masvingo, Zaka

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: For successful replication of contract farming Government extension service agencies (such as AGRITEX) need to be actively involved. FAO has been collaborating with Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development on issues related to Farmer training and extension.

Integration of DRR: The conservation agriculture technology was an important part of this intervention which was used to respond to the challenges of unpredictable rainfall and declining soil fertility.

Capacity development: Training was provided on technical aspects such as crop production as well as farming as a business. Farmers need to be properly trained to negotiate contracts.

Inclusive planning: Design of interventions, stakeholder identification and training has been realised in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development, a local NGO and Private Sector Companies.

Market-based interventions: Contract farming has served as a mechanism to reduce marketing and transaction costs, price risks and other negative externalities facing smallholder farmers, enabling them to benefit from demand-driven growth in high-value agriculture.Households have diversified into cash crops, and are now able to address food security concerns using cash received from crop sales. The farmers’ production thrust has become more market driven as they produce for the market. They have now become players in the market economy.

Stakeholders and partnersFAO has been collaborating with the Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development

52

on issues related to farmer training and extension. Simultaneously FAO has worked with a local NGO on the following: Design, stakeholder identification and selection, implementation, coordination, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and administration of the program. Private Sector Companies have played an active role in the Project in terms of: Provision of inputs, training and extension to farmers. Buying produce from farmers. Provide the program with a sustainable exit strategy. Local farmers have been in charge of crop production.

Both men and women are involved in contract farming. Women enter into contractual agreements with the private sector companies in their own individual rights and some of the women are household heads (single mothers and widows). In addition to reproductive and household maintenance roles, women also participate in agricultural production activities undertaken by men, such as land preparation, weeding, post-harvest handling and marketing.

Methodological approachThe Union Project (UP) piloted a scheme whereby farmers received free inputs to produce cash crops using conservation agriculture technology. This project was introduced after it had been realised that inputs were either not available on the market, or were priced out of the reach of small-holder farmers. Farmers who received these inputs produced cash crops which they sold to private companies. This arrangement also addressed output marketing, which was also a challenge for small-holder farmers. The pilot project was the developed into the contract farming project when the potential of such an arrangement was realised.

ValidationContract farming has been validated as indicated through: a) field monitoring visits by FAO, NGO and private company personnel; b) company performance based on set criteria; c) performance of contracted farmers on such indicators like yield, gross margin, profits, credit repayment; d) field days were also used as validation platforms.

The impact of the project on beneficiaries was also validated by the NGO. The validation was documented in reports submitted by the private sector companies to the NGO, and by the NGO to FAO.

ImpactThe impact of contract farming is the following:

• improved access to agricultural inputs;• guaranteed markets for outputs;• household food security issues addressed;• increased household income from the sale of cash crops;• use of sustainable land management technologies like conservation agriculture;• there has been a change in the farmers’ mindset, from subsistence to commercial;• private sector companies now doing business with small holder farmers

(this was unheard of in the past);• functional farmer groups formed; and• the beneficiaries’ livelihoods have been positively affected environmentally (use conservation

agriculture), financially (increased household income) and economically (food security, access to inputs).

Innovation and success factorsContract farming has brought about and continues to bring about a departure from reliance on food crops for household food security.

Women now have the opportunity to buy other foodstuffs, which has enhanced household dietary diversity.

For successful replication of contract farming the following conditions should be in place:• government extension service agencies (such as AGRITEX) need to be actively involved;• farmers and companies should uphold their contractual obligations;• taking lessons learnt from earlier pilots into account will also ensure successful replication of contract

farming; and• companies should have access to funding arrangements so as to be able to sustain contract farming.

Constraints

53

• Specialised crops need specialized training. This can be addressed by offering such training.• Poor literacy levels for farmers, which may make it difficult for them to understand technical aspects.

This can be addressed by effective training and extension services.• Failure to fulfil terms of the contract by both parties. Measures need to be put in place for both parties

to adhere to the contract.• Contracts biased in favour of the companies. Farmers need to be trained and empowered to participate

in contract negotiating. • Information asymmetry between farmers and the company. Farmers need to engage in market

research to address this issue. • Failure to honour contracts by either party. Need to put mechanisms that enforce the contract

in place.• Poor access to resources like land, farming implements and finance by women.• Unfair sharing of proceeds from contract farming at household level which may prejudice women.• Some activities at the project may require that women participate at times when they are supposed

to be engaged in other household gender roles.

Lessons learnedThe contract should be a win-win agreement between farmers and companies and inputs should be supplied to farmers on time so that farming operations are done on time. The risk of failure is high for dry land crops: there is need to work with realistic (not inflated) potential yield figures when doing crop budgets. This will give a true picture of enterprise viability. Farmers need a lot of technical (agronomy) as well as business management training: farmer trainings need to be done during the off-season period to avoid conflicting with farming chores and thereby increase attendance. Strengthening peer extension support can help bring down costs of extension to companies whilst improving service delivery to contracted farmers.

It is important to have a contract guide that can be customised on a company by company basis rather than leaving companies to their own devices. Companies need to install transparent systems as this retains farmer commitment throughout production and marketing. Both farmers and contract companies require support to access other forms of financing in order to increase their scope and graduate them to market based funding facilities.

Sustainability• The Government extension service agencies (such as AGRITEX) should play a major role in contract

farming. • There should be continuous learning. • Long term commitment and mutual trust between contracting companies and farmers are essential

to the success and sustainability of contract farming. • Companies should have healthy balance sheets to support contract farming.• Companies and farmers should be able to access other sources of funding from the money market

or revolving funds.• Contract farming should be profitable for farmers.• Farmers should be better organised/educated to negotiate contracts.• A revolving fund from which farmers can access funds should be created and managed sustainably.• Government should continually create a conducive environment for private sector investment in

agribusiness, promote competition among various market players and facilitate smallholder farmers to organize themselves into cooperatives, growers’ associations and self-help groups.

UpscalingUpscaling of contract farming can be done both by increasing the geographical coverage (and the number of farmers), as well as increasing the current hectares cropped by farmers. More companies can also participate in contract farming. The following challenges may be faced: a) weak balance sheets of companies that may be interested in going into contract farming; b) fear of risk (drought, default by farmers, disease outbreaks) by companies and c) lack of specialised farmer training and extension services. These challenges can be addressed by companies seeking funding, growing crops under irrigation and developing the capacity of AGRITEX to offer extension services for specialised crops. Gender mainstreaming would also ensure that contract farming is successfully transferred to both men and women.

54

ConclusionContract farming addresses input and output marketing issues. It ensures that farmers produce and market crops. The income received from the sale of produce improves the farmers’ livelihoods.

Contact detailsFelix Dzvurumi, Crops Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: felix.dzvurumi@fao.org

Obert Maminimini, Assistant Crops Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: obert.maminimini@fao.org

Denford Chimboza, Assistant Technical Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: denford.chimboza@fao.org

Related resources that have been developed6) Farming as a Business Training Manual7) Company Evaluation Matrix.

55

E-vouchers for agricultural inputs in ZimbabweSummary and geographic coverageZimbabwe experienced a period of long economic recession from 2000/2008, this was characterized by macro-economic and political challenges; collapse of formal marketing channels, unavailability of key inputs and high prices.

During the 2011/12 season FAO introduced the use of electronic vouchers (e-vouchers) for the provision of agricultural inputs to farmers. The e-vouchers were valued at USD 160, to which the farmer contributed 10 percent (USD 16). The e-vouchers were purely market-based and redeemable at pre-selected agro-dealers. Only agricultural inputs could be purchased with the e vouchers (Seeds; Fertilizers and Lime; Agrochemicals (crop and livestock); Implements and spare parts for farming equipment).

4 100 male and female small holder farmers received subsidised electronic vouchers. 52 percent were female and 48 percent were male. By giving the farmers open e-vouchers male and female farmers had the opportunity to purchase inputs according to their needs. The project was carried out in the districts of Goromonzi, UMP and Marondera.

Critical factors for successful transitional programmingNational ownership: The Government of Zimbabwe, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development, issued national guidelines to govern the provision of support to smallholder farmers in the form of agricultural inputs and extension for the 2011/12 summer cropping season. These sought to minimize direct input distribution and eliminate the provision of free inputs to farmers. The guidelines proposed that inputs be provided using rural input/output markets and that farmers contribute 10 percent to the cost of the inputs they receive. In response to the national guidelines, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Zimbabwe is supporting the 2011/12 agricultural programme through a pilot project that involves using electronic vouchers to provide inputs to 4 100 farming households. For the 2012/13 season, this will be further scaled up to reach 18 000 households.

Integration of DRR: The broad classification of inputs is informed by the 2011 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC), which identified farmers’ agricultural input needs (available at: http://www.acwg.co.zw). FAO also has minimum standards for various agricultural inputs, such as fertilizers, seeds, tools and acceptable agrochemicals. These standards will be maintained by ensuring that at the beginning of the programme, after the agrodealers have been selected, a physical verification through sampling of inputs will be conducted by the FAO Procurement Team to confirm that the technical specifications of the inputs meet FAO standards.

Capacity development: It is essential that all partners in the programme receive appropriate training on the intention and scope of the implementation. Farmers have also benefited from extension support and training on improved farming practices and technologies.

Inclusive planning: FAO has been collaborating with the Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development (MoAMID) on issues related to training ,extension and beneficiary selection. The electronic voucher programme is being implemented through a partnership with MoAMID, various implementing partners, a technical provider and agrodealers.

Market-based interventions: The innovation centres on using market based systems to deliver inputs to small holder farmers versus direct input distribution. The electronic vouchers are redeemable at competing rural agrodealer outlets identified to participate in the programme. This empowers farmers to choose the agricultural inputs they need for the cropping season from a selection offered under the programme. The national guidelines propose that the value of a voucher be no less than USD 160, with the farmer contributing 10 percent (USD 16). The electronic cards have therefore been produced in values of USD 144. The top-up of USD 16 will be provided directly to the agrodealer, if the farmer purchases inputs up to USD 160.

56

Stakeholders and partnersThis intervention has been funded by the Royal Embassy of Netherlands. FAO has been collaborating with the Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development on issues related to training ,extension and beneficiary selection. Simultaneously FAO has worked with a local NGO on the following: Beneficiary selection and distribution of cards and project monitoring. A commercial bank (Kingdom Bank) has been incharge of the management of the e-voucher system, production of cards and the provision of technical backstopping support. Input Suppliers have provided inputs on consignment to agrodealers in the programme. Agro dealershave been stocking a wide range of adequate agricultural inputs and have provided redemption of vouchers.

Methodological approachA small pilot project was implemented during the previous season of 2010/11 season covering 2000 beneficiaries in 2 districts. Lessons from this pilot informed the design of the current project. The pilot project assessed farmers ability to pay towards inputs received through input programmes. The pilot project also tested alternative technological mechanisms to deliver inputs to farmers namely the electronic scratch card and the electronic card. The electronic card emerged to be the most suitable option. In addition FAO gathered lessons learnt and experiences from other NGOs who were implementing voucher programmes.

ValidationA stakeholder’s review workshop was held at the end of the project bringing together input suppliers, agro-dealers, the bank, Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and irrigation Development and the implementing partner, FAO. A separate survey is planned to assess farmers opinion of the programme.

ImpactZimbabwe’s long economic recession saw the collapse of its formal marketing channels; seeds, fertilizers and other inputs became scarce and expensive. The electronic voucher programme helped to re-establish agrodealer networks, ensuring a reliable supply of quality inputs across the country. It also boosted agrodealers’ incomes and contributed to rebuilding Zimbabwe’s rural marketing infrastructure. Farmers, not bound by pre-selected input packs, could choose what to buy and when and where. Having USD 160 to spend meant that they could purchase enough seeds, fertilizers, tools or spare parts to move beyond subsistence farming. Most farmers, for example, bought fertilizers and productive assets such as ploughs. With at least two participating agrodealers per ward, farmers had more choice and prices remained competitive.

Innovation and success factorsThe use of electronic vouchers exposed the farmers to technologically advanced systems of purchasing inputs which they would not have been exposed to. Farmers had the choice to choose the inputs they needed and demonstrated the ability to raise money to pay towards the inputs received, presenting a case to move away from free input distributions.

Conditions that need to be in place include the existence of a formal input supply chain which includes input suppliers, wholesalers and agro dealers. The availability of inputs through the formal marketing channelsThe availability of electronic communication network.

Constraints• Artificial price hikes by participating agro-dealers: this challenge can be addressed by ensuring

farmers have a choice of at least 3 agro-dealers to choose from within their area. • Technological hiccups of the e-voucher system: this challenge can be addressed by ensuring technical

backstopping support services are provided by the technical partner/bank.• Input supply failures: sensitize various input suppliers of the programme so that they stock agro-

dealer with sufficient inputs.• Misrepresentation of the facts by participating agro-dealers who take unfair advantage of the

programme. This challenge can be addressed by ensuring all beneficiaries of the programme have a full understanding of the programme objectives and processes.

Lessons learnedThe main lessons learned are more on the design of the programme. It is all about timing. Farmers need to receive their electronic vouchers well before the start of the planting season to give them ample time to plan and buy what they need. Likewise, healthy, mutually-benefitting relationships among agrodealers, wholesalers and suppliers are essential for well-functioning input supply chains, which, along with formal marketing channels and an electronic communication network, need to be in place for the project to work.

57

SustainabilityThe relationship between agro-dealers and suppliers needs to be strengthened to ensure a healthy mutually benefitting business relationship. Government should continually create a conducive environment for private sector investment in agribusiness. Farmers income generation opportunities need to be improved so they can purchase inputs without assistance from input programmes. Training and awareness raising among all those involved on the voucher exchange process, record keeping and the overseeing of stock levels and quality are crucial, while regular monitoring is key in preventing fraud.

The programme successfully introduced information and communications technology into rural areas. Electronic cards should remain active after the project so that farmers can carry out transactions through existing banking services. Efforts need to be ramped up to improve incomegenerating opportunities for smallholder farmers to reduce their need for external assistance.moreover there needs to be continuous learning and documentation of good practices.

UpscalingAround 70 percent of the country lives in rural areas and relies on agriculture for their livelihoods, which is why the agriculture sector is so crucial to Zimbabwe’s economic recovery. FAO Zimbabwe is now scaling up the electronic voucher project, reaching out to 18 000 farming households during the 2012/13 cropping season. FAO will carry out a survey to assess the project’s impact on farmers’ livelihoods. The Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development continues to play a key role in providing training, extension support and monitoring.

There is a strong push to encourage farmers and agribusinesses to see farming as a business. Innovative public-private partnerships, such as the electronic voucher scheme, have an important role to play in driving agriculture forward in Zimbabwe and beyond. Such partnerships can provide important business links and opportunities to smallholder farmers to move beyond subsistence farming and achieve greater prosperity.

The main pre conditions include the presence of a functional input supply chain (inputs suppliers, wholesalers agro-dealers) and a reliable functional technical system to ensure the vouchers can be used. The system can be adjusted to accommodate different country /area contexts. Local availability of inputs eases the triple burden that women farmers carry of production, reproduction and attending to societal needs. The use of the e vouchers can be extended for use in livestock programmes

ConclusionThe innovative practice works; it has successfully introduced the use of ICT into rural areas. Farmers have the opportunity to choose the inputs they need. The good practice has shown that farmers can contribute towards the inputs they receive thus lessening dependency on free handouts. The use of e-vouchers enhanced the development of the local economy, agrodealers were able to push more volumes of inputs and generate more income through the voucher programme.

Contact detailsConstance Oka, Coordination Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: constance.oka@fao.org

Douglas Magunda, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: douglas.magunda@fao.org

Jean Claude Urvoy, Emergency and Rehabilitation Coordinator, FAO Zimbabwe E-mail: jeanclaude.urvoy@fao.org

Related Web site(s)www.acwg.co.zw

Related resources that have been developed:• Publication: E-vouchers in Zimbbawe: Guidelines for agricultural input distribution• Pamphlet : evouchers in Zimbabwe• Video documentary: E-vouchers in Zimbabwe• Farmer fact sheet on how to use the e-voucher

58

References10

Alinovi, Hemrich, Russo. 2008. Beyond Relief. Food Security in Protracted Crises.

Cluster Working Group on Early recovery - in collaboration with UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Transition. 2008. Guidance note on Early Recovery.

FAO. 2010a. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises.

FAO. 2010b. Transition: Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (SO I OR3 Concept Note).

FAO. 2011. Resilient Livelihoods: Disaster Risk Reduction for Food and Nutrition Security Framework Programme.

FAO/OfficeofEvaluation. 2012a. An Independent Evaluation of FAO’s Response to the July 2010 Floods in Pakistan.

FAO and Food Security Cluster. 2012b. Detailed Livelihood Assessment in 28 Flood-affected Districts of Pakistan.

OECD. 2012. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, International Support to Post-Conflict Transition, Rethinking Policy, Changing practice.

OCHA on Message. 2010. Transition.

UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Transition. 2009. Guidance Note on Funding for Transition.

UNDG/ECHA-CWGER. Introductory note to the Transition Guidance Toolkit.

WFP. 1998. From Crisis to Recovery, Policy issues - Agenda item 4.

WFP. 2005. Exiting Emergencies: Programme Options for Transition from Emergency Response, Policy issues - Agenda item 4.

10 Resources such as fact sheets, publications, videos and websites that have been developed in the context of each good practice are presented at the end of each good practice showcased in this document.

59

Annex: Good Practices Template11

This model can be used as a checklist to verify that you have covered as much as possible when documenting a good practice. It will help you identify and collect best practices. The right hand column describes the meaning of the element. The purpose of this template is to guide you when identifying and documenting good practices. This template is based on a thorough analysis of FAO and its partner organizations’ approaches to good practices collection.

Element Guiding questionsTitle What is the name that best describes the good practice?Type of document (optional)

To be included include in the subtitle, for example.Specify is the document is a good practice fact sheet, an information sheet, an experience sheet, a case study, a manual or guidelines?

Target audience To whom is this document addressed?Objective What is the aim/objective of this document?Publication date When (month and year) was the good practice documented/published? Author(s) Who wrote the good practice document?Publisher (optional) Is the good practice published by FAO or together with partners, in which case

please specify the names of the partner organisations.Location /geographic coverage

What is the geographical range where the good practice has been used? Please specify when possible, the country, region, province, district, town and village. If possible, add a map to show where the practice was implemented.

Introduction What is the context (initial situation) and challenge being addressed? Please provide a short description of the good practice being addressed and specify the period during which the practice has been carried out? Explain how gender was taken into account in both the challenge being addressed and the good practice itself.

Stakeholders and Partners*

Who are the beneficiaries or the target group of the good practice? Who are the users of the good practice? Who are the institutions, partners, implementing agencies, and donors involved in the good practice, and what is the nature of their involvement? Please explain the different roles men and women play as they benefit from the good practice.

Methodological Approach*

What methodology has been used in order to address the initial issue and lead to a successful outcome and finally to the good practice? What was the process and in which way it was a participatory process? How long did it take to learn lessons and identify key success factors? Please include gender aspects addressed in the description of the methodological approach.

Validation* Confirmation by the beneficiaries that the practice addresses the needs properly. Has the good practice been validated with the stakeholders/final users? Brief description of the good practice validation process.

Impact* What has been the impact (positive or negative) of this good practice on the beneficiaries’ - both men and women - livelihoods? Please explain how the impact may differ between men and women. Have these beneficiaries’ livelihoods been environmentally, financially, and/or economically improved, and if yes how?

Innovation and Success Factors *

In what way has the good practice contributed to an innovation in the livelihoods of men and women? What are the conditions (economic, social, and environmental) that need to be in place for the good practice to be successfully replicated (in a similar context)?

Constraints* What are the challenges encountered by men and women in applying the good practice? How have they been addressed?

11 The FAO Good Practices categories are listed on the FAO Good Practices Web site - http://www.fao.org/knowledge/goodpractices/gphome/en/

60

Element Guiding questionsLessons learned * What are the key messages and lessons learned to take away from the good

practice experience, as much as for men as for women?Sustainability* What are the elements that need to be put into place for the good practice to

be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable?Upscaling * What are the possibilities of extending the good practice more widely? If you

were giving advice to men and women living in another geographic area, what are the conditions that should be met/respected to ensure that the good practice is replicated, but adapted to the new context? The aim is to go further than the section “Innovations / critical success factors” in specifying the requirements for replication of the practice on a larger scale (regional, international).

Conclusion* Conclude specifying/explaining the impact and usefulness of the good practice. When possible, use anecdotal evidence such as a storytelling or testimony of a man or a woman showing the benefit of the good practice.

Contact details What is the address of the people or the project to contact if you want more information on the good practice?

URL of the practice Where can one find the good practice on the Internet?Related Web site(s) What are the Web sites of the projects under which the good practice was

identified and reproduced?Related resources that have been developed

What training manuals, guidelines, technical fact sheets, posters, pictures, video and audio documents, and/or Web sites have been created and developed as a result of identifying the good practice?

* All of these dimensions should contain information that is sensitive to gender, or the difference between men and women.

For a world without hunger

www.fao.org