Why could FOs be interested by being

part of the WAW Initiative?

Patrick CaronGeneral Director

Cirad23rd February 2012

Three issues to start with

• Farming and impacts : agricultural holdings, territories and global challenges ?

• Farming and impact : time scales ?

• Farmers’ Organizations : essential stakeholders to join WAW ?

2

Madagascar

Farming and impacts

AgricultureS are at the nexus of global challenges but:

– Expression at local level : farms and territories

– Types of farms, different impacts

– Structural change and impact

3

Hypothesis :

Different business models x territories, different impacts :

Production (not only !)Local resources and assetsEmploymentDistribution of incomesGHGWater availabilityetc.

From ILC, 2012

?

Time scales : farming and impact ?Agriculture and sustainability ?

– Quick changes to adapt

– … but often medium and long termprocesses, as for policy changes

– … whose impacts are long term and cumulative, as for landscape

4

Hypothesis :

Different business models, Different consequences for sustainability?

FOs : essential stakeholder to join WAW?

• Robust figures and evidences on time and space impacts of different business models ?

• Engage in debate on business models and policy options (eg Family farms vs Modern Enterprises)– Based on relevant, updated and validated local

analysis and information

– Taking on board different scales and at different levels : territory, national, international

• Involving FOs in debate !

• Design with FOs conceptual and methodological framework for observation at territory and farm levels 5

In order to illustrate :Madagascar

An initiated WAW… First proposal … and work in progress

7

Bringing stakeholders

together

Share scattered

information and data

managementCollective

understanding, convergences,

conflicts

Observatory

ManagementDecision makingPolicy making

An initiated WAW… : Illustrations

• Conceptual and methodological framework available for discussion and improvement

• Pilot research project funded by Cirad to work on methodological issues in partnership with stakeholders

– Ex : Madagascar

8

Conceptual and methodological framework WAW

Proposal … and work in progress

9

LAKE ALAOTRA IN MADAGASCAR

An observatory as a process

Why Lake Alaotra?

Rice Granary

Agricultural employment

Ecological richness; RAMSAR

Area

System at risk: slash and burn,

erosion, biodiversity threats

Coexistence of family farms and

farming entrepreneurs

Agricultural Innovations

Knowledge accumulation and

partnerships

A consistent geographical

territory

Use of satellite information

1969 2006

13

Land Use Changes

Participatory identification of constraints and challenges

Mobilization different stakeholders : unusual brainstorming about their common territory

Shared concerns about interactions between agricultural and socio-economical and environmental issues

8 workshops and working groups in Antananarivo and Lake Alaotra : from main issues to indicators screening

PRODUCTIONTemporary labor

Input access

CLIMATE

Increasing risks,climate change

WATER

Quality and fishing resource

FOREST and PONDS

Rational cuttings, clearings, biodiversity, invading species, fires

SOIL and RICE FIELDSFertility, erosion, sand silting-up

Lack of integrated

information to understand and manage

Zone d’élevage de volailles

Zone de pêche

Zone touchée par l’insécurité alimentaire

Zone touché par l’insécurité des biens et des personnes

Zone transformée en rizière

Terrain colonial

Participatory mapping sessions with local multiple stakeholders

Interactions highlighted by FOs :

Rice cultivation on ponds and lack of reed for craft use and house building

Reduction of zebus, manure and rice yields

Indicateurs individuels Sources

RA : 2005RFR :2008-

2011ROR : (99) 2005-11

Typologie des EA

Caractéristiques structurelles

Capital

Foncier

Main d'œuvre

Fonctionnement

Système d'activités

Pratiques agricolesProduction

Consommations intermédiaires

Marges brutes / production

Revenus

Sécurité alimentaire

Capacités

Energie

Existing data inventory at holding level

17

3 different sourcesDifferent yearsDifferent variables

Typology of farms

18

Farmincome(eur/yr)

Farminc./ total

income

A : Large rice farms 3 - 6 ha IR ; > 4ha up-land extensive ; cattle

2 390 100%

B : Rice farmers with unsecured yields

3 ha IR unsercured ; 2-3 ha up-land fully cultivated (market oriented)

2 670 100%

C : Selfsufficient farmers focused on upland fields

1-3 ha IR unsecured ; <3h up-land intensified (market oriented) ; some small cattle or off-farm activities

700 62%

D : Diversified farmers > 1,5ha IR unsecured ; off-farm activities ; often cattle

820 67%

E : Non-selfsufficient farmers, involved in agriculture employment

< 0,5ha IR unsecured ; 1 ha up-land intensified ; agriculture employment

720 94%

F : Fishermen with agriculture employment

1 ha IR unsecured ; <0,5ha up-land ; fishery

670 31%

G : Fishermen wihoutland nore farming activities

Full-time fishery ; some agriculture employment

Self sufficiency in rice

Access to landscapeunits (irrigation)

Off farm acticvities

Conservation agriculture : B & C

Farming system modeling

• Assessing the impact of alternative cropping systems Example : Type C farm

19-1 500

-1 000

-500

0

500

1 000

1 500

2007 2010 2013 2016K a

ria

rys

Farm Cash Balance

Reference

CA standard

CA optimal

Farming system modeling

Assessing the impact of a shock : 50 % fertilizer price increase

The “optimal Conservation” system is the most resilient and remains the most profitable, despite the use of fertilizers

20-2 000

-1 000

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

2007 2010 2013 2016

K A

riar

y

Increase of fertilizer price - Cumulated Cash Balance

CA optimal

CA opti - Fert increase

CA standard

CA std - Ferti increase

Reference

Ref - Ferti increase

Evolution of assets’ structure

Accumulation strategies among initially weakly endowed households (1999-2006)

Adjustment strategies of initially medium endowed households, in regressive trend (1999-2006)

A panel of 252 households, surveyed from 1999 to 20063 major types of assets’ structure

21

Dynamic analysis :

What Madagascar tells us…

• Performances and side effect impacts : references but not easy to assess (space and time scales, functions, interactions)

• Metrics and challenges for making data / information usefulo Synthesis between knowledge sources ?

o Articulation with census ?

o Capture changes ?

o New data ?

• Involvement of FOs : o From participatory brainstorming to policy making ?

o Develop partnership with stakeholders to improve data/information availability and use

22

Way forward!• Comments and inputs welcome

• « WAW sites » to address the issue of Agricultural Transformation through collaborative project

• Feed the debate on the futures of agriculture from national to international levels trough evidences

23

Include FOs in the governance of WAW at national levels and in the global architecture ?

Contribution from research ?

Thank you for your attention!

Contributions from

-Patrick Rasolofo-Céline Ronfort-Hélène David-Benz-Eric Penot-Jacques Imbernon-Jean-François Bélières-Nicole Andrianirina-Lalaina Randrianarison-Pierre-Marie Bosc-Hubert George