Welcome to ACT- Conservation Agriculture - Benchmarking ......up agroforestry based conservation...

1 Benchmarking Regional Economic Communities (RECs) Processes to Articulate Advancement of Conservation Agriculture

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE WITH TREES (CAWT): SCALING-UP THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Benchmarking Regional Economic Communities (RECs) Processes to Articulate Advancement of Conservation Agriculture

A Platform Setting Report

By

Pascal G. Kaumbutho PhD CEng MIAgrE1

in partnership with

Jeremiah Moyo2, Saidi Mkomwa3, Jonathan Muriuki4, Hamisi Dulla5

1 Chief Executive Officer: KENDAT, Green Engineering and Conservation Agriculture Value-Chains

Consultant. [email protected] www.kendat.org 2 Regional Manager for East Africa (ICRAF)

3 Executive Secretary (ACT)

4 Associate Scientist (ICRAF)

5 Knowledge and Information Manager (ACT)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kendat.org/


Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms …………………………………….. 4

Executive Summary …………………………………….. 6

Chapter 1.0: Introduction and Background …………………………………….. 10 1.1 Why is Upscaling necessary? …………………………………….. 11 1.2 Regional networking and CA advancement support …………………………………….. 12 1.3 Why Conservation Agriculture With Trees? …………………………………….. 14 1.4 Background to the Study …………………………………….. 15 1.5 Some Out- and Up-Scaling Perspectives …………………………………….. 15 1.5.1 Is it a matter of science? …………………………………….. 16

1.5.2 What are the essential ingredients for upscaling? …………………………………….. 17

1.5.3 How about semi-arid and arid lands? …………………………………….. 17

1.5.4 Can savings in fuel and labour cost alone be motivators for upscaling CA?.................. 18 1.5.5 What can be done to address the many challenges of upscaling CA?.......................... 19

Chapter 2: Summary of the national governmental agricultural performance platform for growing CAWT policy …………………………………….. 21 2.1 Status of Zambia Agricultural Sector Performance …………………………………….. 21 2.2 Status of Tanzania Agricultural Sector Performance …………………………………….. 22 2.2.1 Awareness on CA and CAWT …………………………………….. 23

2.2.2 Coordination in Sustainable Land Management Systems …………………………………….. 23

2.2.3 Inadequate Extension Services …………………………………….. 23

2.2.4 Training on CA and CAWT …………………………………….. 23

2.2.5 Research and Development: …………………………………….. 24

2.2.6 Financing in Agricultural Technologies: …………………………………….. 24

2.2.7 Incentive Packages …………………………………….. 24

2.2.8 Trade Offs …………………………………….. 24

2.3 Status of Kenya Agricultural Sector Performance …………………………………….. 25 2.3.1 Historical perspective …………………………………….. 25

2.3.2 Status of CA and its advancement in Kenya: Conservation Agriculture

for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (CA-SARD) and Beyond…………... 26

2.3.3: Analysis of Policies, Strategies and Action Plans …………………………………….. 29

2.3.4 Review Major Public and Private Sector Institutional Arrangements…………..…………. 30 2.4 Status of Ghana Agricultural Sector Performance …………………………………….. 31 2.4.1 National policy interventions …………………………………….. 32

2.4.2 Other Policies, Strategies and Plans Supportive of CA …………………………………….. 33

Chapter 3.0 National Programmes and Partnerships Participating or

Sought to Drive CAWT to the Next Level …………………………………….. 35 3.1 Zambia CAWT Partners …………………………………….. 35 3.1.1 Zambian National Programmes and Projects promoting CAWT…………………………….. 35

3.1.2 Roles of various organizations …………………………………….. 36

3.1.3 Existing Institutional Arrangements …………………………………….. 37

3.1.4 Implications for Current Policy Environment for expanding CAWT………….…………….. 38

3.1.5 Way Forward for CAWT at National Level …………………………………….. 39


3.2 Tanzania CAWT Partners and Progression …………………………………….. 42 3.2.1 Seed Industry …………………………………….. 42

3.2.2 Markets …………………………………….. 42

3.2.3 Investment Opportunities and Value Addition …………………………………….. 42

3.2.4 Private Sector Support …………………………………….. 43

3.2.5 Progression …………………………………….. 43

3.3 Kenya CAWT Partners …………………………………….. 43 3.3.1 Typical Challenges facing CAWT …………………………………….. 45 3.3.2 Achievements and way forward …………………………………….. 48 3.3.3 Kenya Agriculture & Livestock Sector (Drastic) Realignment:……………………….. 48 3.4. Ghana CAWT Policy and Institutional Partners …………………………………….. 51 3.4.1 Strategic CAWT Organizational Effort …………………………………….. 51 3.4.2 Other CAWT Programmatic Efforts …………………………………….. 51 Chapter 4: Low Hanging Fruit CAWT Support Institutions and Programmes

at REC, CAADP and AU Levels …………………………………….. 52 4.1 National into Regional Platforms for Up-scaling CAWT………….……………………….. 52 4.1.1 The Africa Conservation Tillage Network …………………………………….. 52

4.1.2 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) .………………………….. 53

4.1.3 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) …………………………………….. 55

4.2 African Union and Regional Economic Communities Architecture……….………….. 56 4.3 RECs and CAADP Entry Points to the Regional Support for Up-scaling

Regional CAWT Initiatives …………………………………….. 57 4.3.1 Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) ……………….. 57

4.4 Grounding CAADP Pillar 1: Towards Africa-wide Sustainable Land and Water Management …………………………………….. 59

4.5 CAWT Growth through RECs, led by CAADP & her National Compacts………..….. 62 4.6 CAADP Opportunities …………………………………….. 63 4.7 COMESA Opportunities …………………………………….. 66 Chapter 5: Conclusions of this Study …………………………………….. 69 5.1 Are there more Questions than Answers? …………………………………….. 69 5.2 The Regional Platform for fast-tracking CAWT initiatives from national

to regional levels for sustained growth and impact …………………………………….. 73 Bibliography …………………………………….. 75 Appendix 1: Regional Economic Communities Alignment.…………………………………….. 78 Appendix 2: Africa: A continent Contrasts …………………………………….. 85 Appendix 3: Terms of Reference for the Study …………………………………….. 86


Abbreviations and Acronyms AfDB: African Development Bank AGRA: Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa AU: African Union AUC: African Union Commission CAADP: Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme CILSS: Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel CMAWCA: Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa COMESA: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CSO: Civil Society Organisation DFID: Department for International Development ECCAS: Economic Community of Central African States ECOWAP: Economic Community of West Africa Agricultural Programme ECOWAS: Economic Community of West African States FAAP: Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (CAADP Pillar 4) FAFS: Framework for African Food Security (CAADP Pillar 3) FARA: Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FFS: Farmer field schools approach FIMA: Framework for the Improvement of Rural Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Market Access (CAADP Pillar 2) GEF: Global Environment Facility GGWI: Great Green Wall Initiative GTZ: Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit IFAD: International Fund for Agriculture Development IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute KENDAT: Kenya Network for Dissemination of Agricultural Technologies M&E: Monitoring and evaluation MDG: Millennium Development Goal NEPAD: New Partnership for Africa‘s Development NGO: Non-governmental organisation OAU: Organisation for African Unity OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PPP: Public-private partnership PRSP: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper REC: Regional Economic Community ReSAKSS: Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System RIU: Research Into Use UNCCD: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNZA: University of Zambia


SADC: Southern African Development Community SAKSS: Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SFI: Soil Fertility Initiative SLM: Sustainable land management SLWM: Sustainable land and water management SSO: Sahara and Sahel Observatory SWAp: Sector-wide approach


Executive Summary: Seventy per cent more food must be provided in the next 40 years when the current 7 billion world population is projected to hit an all-time high of 9 billion. This highly drastic population explosion will be taking place, but more so in the developing world. Even more impact of this will be felt in Africa where life is mostly rural and agricultural production is by the majority of smallholder farmers (67 per cent), operating in vulnerable semi-arid lands. Agriculture is key to reducing poverty in Africa, the answer to sustained economic growth. Sub-Saharan African agriculture contributes an average of 27% towards national GDP. FAO has estimated that a 1% increase in cereal yields can lift 2 million people out of poverty in this region. However, sub-Saharan Africa’s per capita food production has already been

declining over the last 50 years, where the number of undernourished people has swelled from 170 million in 1991 to 236 million in 2007 (Mukomwa 2012). Economic development and resource use have brought great benefits to many people, but the world faces serious social and environmental challenges, driven by wasteful production and consumption, skewed trading under subsidy systems that appear to bring about persistent and recurring financial crises. Gross inequities persist within and between nations. Unemployment is endemic and rising, particularly among the young, giving rise to tensions and unrest. The financial system has failed to generate appropriate levels of investment into sustainable wealth creation. Rockström and Pasztor (2012). In this world order, a development situation is firming-up where the majority African smallholder farmers must increasingly compete at the world food production arena. The situation is made ever more precarious for the world and more so for Africa as the above situation now faces a rising world temperature, rising food prices and other impacts of climate change. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution world Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 389ppm. During the same period global temperature has risen by about 1 Degree Celcius (Earth Institute 2010). As the world becomes more vulnerable, luckily, the Conservation Agriculture ‘movement’ is gaining inevitable strength, even in Africa. Many advantages are foreseen, if this movement can gain more and more strength and breadth in the environment, food, human development, climate and trade arenas. The movement needs urgent and important resource allocation, policy and institutional reform. With this in mind SIDA commissioned a 1 year scoping study to be conducted by ICRAF and ACT a process that involved 4 countries (Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana) between January 2011 and May 2012. The main focus of this project was to generate the knowledge base required to initiate a mechanism for establishing a robust regional platform that would spearhead the uptake of CAWT for a successful evergreen agriculture revolution. The project was designed with three major outputs, namely: (i) The extent of adoption of conservation


agriculture by smallholder farmers identified and documented, and the institutional and organizational infrastructure to support up-scaling mapped and analyzed, (ii) Policy and institutional factors promoting or hindering large scale adoption of conservation agriculture identified, quantified and documented and (iii) A regional facilitation mechanism for scaling up agroforestry based conservation agriculture identified. The study reported here contributes to Outputs ii) and iii) by setting the scene for policy and institutional undertakings that are ongoing in the 4 study countries and making recommendations for a regional facilitation mechanism and platform for inculcating the advancement of CA within opportunities available or planned within the Regional Economic Communities. The study concludes that there is no shortage of policy interventions in the 4 study countries within which CAWT can be advanced. However many of the existing policies address environmental concerns or sustainable land and water management in general. A few reach the level of soil and water conservation for food security, at best mentioning CA in passing. Except for the case of Zambia, the policies do not always mention or give CAWT the development position that would ensure that interventions help CAWT be adopted and scaled-up, based on environmental stewardship or understanding of its principles and the drastic change and impact CAWT can bring about in terms of food security and even climate change mitigation. Indeed the study dwells on the urge to consider CAWT as more likely to gain faster development and upscale advancement mileage, if housed in Climate Change, much more than in agricultural advancement platform and arena.

The study notes that there remains more questions than answers in terms of:

Farmer engagement and participation as respectable equals across value chains, listened to and provided with innovative agribusiness incentives, addressing their needs from a livelihoods perspective as to include natural, human, social, physical and financial capitals.

Relevant and home-grown policy built on long-term plans operationalized upon established platforms for driving inclusive change, backed by carefully thought Theory of Change. Departure from policies and plans that are too many and disjointed, palatable by only a few parties in upper-end of value chains is long overdue.

CAWT should be seen from the development eyes that fade away from the sung 3 CA Principles and focus more on the more inclusive principles of: - Stabilizing Population, - Creating Wealth, - Restoring the Earth’s Natural Support Systems and - Stabilizing Climate.


Agricultural policies need to adequately merged with the all-important matters of environmental protection and efficient use of soil, water, energy, education, finance, productivity, value-addition, trade and markets. Value-chains that are likely to grow and support others and their hierarchy actualization needs urgent attention.

National into regional structure and policy towards accelerated growth of CAWT at panacea level, where:

- CAADP and arising CAADP compacts marry adequately with solidly grounded national policy, plans and strategies.

- Countries are providing for adequate own resources with clear guidelines on where and how development partners can chip in.

- Countries have clear and committed CAWT, SLWM and even Natural Resource Preservation Investment Plans well documented with the inputs of all stakeholders.

In benchmarking CAWT in RECs the study proposes a regional hierarchy of Task Forces from Country to African Union Level (see Figure 11). The architecture of national to regional representation and development delivery channels that exist receive due cognizance. This architecture considers that AU member nations belong to particular or several of the existing 8 RECs, namely AUM, ECOWAS, CEN-SAD, ECCAS, IGAD, EAC, COMESA and SADC. It considers that AU has a technical wing, namely NEPAD, under which the CAADP was established. Each member country is expected to condense CAADP to the extent that its guidelines support and rhyme with its national development plans, mandate and agenda for prioritized advancement areas. The arising CAADP compacts are supposed to be implemented with the support of, and via the hierarchical positions of one or several RECs, depending on a given nation’s political and economic alignments and membership in the RECs. The study proposes national CAWT task forces of at most 10 members each, drawn from CAWT national stakeholders already active in CAWT and adequately representing farmers and their supporters, private sector, NGO and Government, development partners among other environment, food security and rural development activists. The ladder, climbing to representation at the African Union is well presented. Its make-up can be described as follows:

i) Each AU member country forms a CAWT task force of at most 10 members (National Task Forces of 10 Members within each Country).

ii) The chairs of each national task force competitively appoint a team of at most 156 of themselves or their recognized assistants to represent them at the RECs of which their countries are members (A REC Committee of 15 persons who are Chairs of national Task Forces or representatives of Chairs where a country is a member of more than one REC)

6 This number will match the number of member countries of each REC except in cases where the number of

member countries in a given REC exceed 15.


iii) Each REC then popularly appoints a single representative to cover their interests at NEPAD CAADP-SLWM sittings (A NEPAD CAADP – SLWM Committee of 8 persons, one per REC)

iv) At the AU will sit 4 popularly appointed members of the NEPAD-CAADP Committee to cover the interests of the entire continent at AU (An AU SLWM Continental Committee of 4 persons, appointed from the NEPAD CAADP representatives)

This hierarchy and strategic direction was supported by the gathering of CAT stakeholders that sat at the CAWT Project Closing Workshop held in Arusha, Tanzania in May, 2012.


Chapter 1.0: Introduction and Background Despite remarkable growth in agriculture in the past 50 years, the world still faces a critical challenge: how to feed a population expected to reach nine billion by the year 2050. The goal for the agricultural sector is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption outcomes (Pretty et al., 2010). Most of Africa has a great challenge of agricultural water. In dryland agriculture there are generally low yields, large yield gaps and huge potential for improvement. Here is the key to future food security (Shideed, 2011). In dry areas, where water is the most limiting factor, achieving this goal will require coordinated action on several issues.

i) To optimize the use of scarce water resources while continuing to increase food production.

ii) To develop national, regional and international policies that support the development of more productive and sustainable food production systems.

iii) To narrow the (widening) gap between potential and actual yields, i.e. what is possible using available technology versus what farmers are actually harvesting.

iv) To diversify farming and systems, with intensive but sustainable production methods. Conservation Agriculture (CA) is known to have many advantages to the soil and the general environment, to crops and livestock, to farmers and their nations. The classical advantages of CA are typically listed as, but are not limited to:

o Higher and sustained yields, including likelihood of average yields in drought years. o Savings in time, labour, fuel and other input costs like arising from lowered seed and

chemical application rates, o Food security and general higher farm profitability, o Richer soils of good nutrition with reduced soil erosion and improved structure,

hence improved moisture retention. However, the extent to which these are realized depends on how well the simultaneous application of the three principles that make complete CA application are applied, namely:

1. No-till or minimum soil disturbance, 2. Permanent soil cover by crop residue or cover crops, 3. Crop rotations and associations, including high soil and livestock nutrition trees.

Over time, it has come to be agreed that these 3 principles must be applied not only simultaneously but also with due regards to good agricultural practices like applied by any farmer who is conscious of sustainable land and water management and whose stewardship lies in land and general environment preservation, namely:


• Timely planting, supported by carefully selected and appropriate hand, animal or motorized equipment capable of direct seeding on un-ploughed land,

• Soil testing to determine the need and selection of the needed chemical fertilizer, • Timely weed control, applied in ways that reduce seed bank in the soil, • Appropriate plant spacing for water and soil nutrition adequacy, • Regular scouting for and control of pests and diseases using approved chemicals or

IPM

1.1 Why is Upscaling necessary? From Table 1, in 2008, no country in Africa, except South Africa had more than 100,000 ha under no-till. South Africa CA application and presence is dominated by largescale farmers. While no-till may mean (but not necessarily) that all three CA principles are being applied, it is most likely that South Africa and other countries are applying some but not all practices of CA. Major change in the situation presented in Table 1 is likely to have changed since 2008 when the Table was generated. The Africa Conservation Tillage Network (ACT) reports that following her far-reaching CA-SARD project (2004-2011) and other recent interventions the following impacts and observations are observable, cutting across at least Tanzania and Kenya (Mkomwa 2012):

1. About 20,000 households were reached; using some 300 Farmer Field Schools 2. 47% of targeted households are practicing CA (2 or all 3 principles) in 1,600 hectares. 3. Improved access to equipment by farmers in various corners of the region among

growing use of 2 Wheel tractors under growing village level contractual arrangements.

4. CA-SARD offsprings emerged namely 6 NGOs, 8 local equipment production workshops, 10 district councils supporting CA and 2 development projects emerged.

- Small holder Conservation Agriculture Promotion (SCAP) project in West Africa (Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger), currently in the 3rd year of phase 1 of implementation.

- ACT leads implementation of the IFAD and AFD -financed SCAP project with ICRAF and CIRAD, hosted by the big IFAD loan projects of PPILDA, PADER/BGN, PICOFA and PDRD.

5. ACT reports development and adaptation of CA-based cropping systems such as: - 35 FFS groups formed (22 in Burkina Faso, 8 in Niger and 5 in Guinea) with

over 1000 members in 31 villages. - 45% of the FFS members are women and 26% are youths. - 37% of the FFS members have taken up elements of CA in their own farms. - Cereals (sorghum, millet) intercrop with legumes, improved fallow of

leguminous shrubs followed by cereals and exploration of indigenous knowledge on integrated native trees & shrubs.

6. ACT has two other projects:


- CA2 Africa Project: established to Analyse and Foresee CA Impact in Africa and to Comprehend CA Adoption. Its Objectives are spelt out as to: Assess and learn jointly from past and on-going CA experiences, how and to what extent CA strengthens the socio-economic position of landholders in Africa. The project is led by CIRAD and is funded by EU, and has 10 partners (including ACT). It operates in 4 platforms: Southern; Eastern; Western and North Africa.

Table 1: Zero tillage adoption worldwide for (countries with > 100,000 ha) _________________________________________________ Country Area under No-tillage(ha) 2007/2008 USA 26,500,000 Argentina 25,785,000 Brazil 25,502,000 Australia 17,000,000 Canada 13,481,000 Paraguay 2,400,000 China 1,330,000 Kazakhstan 1,300,000 Bolivia 706,000 Uruguay 655,000 Spain 650,000 South Africa 368,000 Venezuela 300,000 France 200,000 Finland 200,000 Chile 180,000 New Zealand 162,000 Colombia 102,000 Ukraine 100,000

Total 116,921,000

___________________________________________________ Source: Derpsch, R. and Friedrich, T., 2010.

- The Agro-ecology Based Aggradation-Conservation Agriculture (ABACO): targets innovations to combat soil degradation and food insecurity in semi-arid Africa. It targets East (Kenya, Tanzania), West (Mali, Burkina Faso) and Southern (Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagascar) Africa. ACT are leaders of a consortium of 9 North-South partners: SOFESCA of the University of Zimbabwe; CIRDES of Mali; FOFIFA of Malagasy; CIRAD of France; Wageningen University; NRI - Greenwich University UK; Yellow Windows of Belgium and EMRAPA, Brazil. The project in the 2nd of its 4 year life.


As she sets herself for growth to the next level, ACT was well represented, had a powerful booth and 2 Side-Events on Smallholder Farmers at the 5th World Congress on CA, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia September-October, 2011. ACT took Centre Stage at the High Table of the Steering Committee and led key-note African presenters. ACT has realized the strong needs for her, as the best placed representative of the passengers, if not being the driver of the CA bus on the continent. ACT, in March 2012 initiated the development of her 5 Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017). Some of the thrusts of this plan include initiating the formation and functioning of CA Communities of Practice such as among:

Farmers and the NGOs serving them; Researchers and Extension workers; Universities and Agriculture colleges; Equipment manufacturers & suppliers and National CA Task Forces;

Some of her most pressing interventions lie in engaging appropriate forces and actors to:

Bulk cover crop seeds for enhanced natural fertility, animal nutrition and reduced use of external inputs which farmers can hardly afford.

Systematically integrate livestock into CA by advancing leguminous trees and grasses as cover crops.

To this end ACT’s great partner in development, FAO and the great partner in research, ICRAF are forging ways to stay in the attitude to retaining and growing stronger partnerships and build speedier and far reaching interventions that are backed by national policies and regional RECs, among other partners like NGOs, farmer organizations, private sector operators etc. On her part ICRAF has in recent times been aggressively promoting the use of “fertilizer trees”, one of several urgent and almost “too good to be true” interventions that need new energy and thrust as the ready and high impact research and development contributions.

1.2 Regional networking and CA advancement support FAO has supported several initiatives for CA advancement all over the world. In Africa FAO is well represented with national and specialized regional offices and networks. FAO in partnership with others like GTZ and ICRAF/RELMA helped fund the original national Technical Cooperation and later full-blown bilateral projects in collaboration with governments, NGOs, private sector and farmers. Through the CA-SARD project farmers were advanced through the FFS mobilization model. Local exchange visits and elaborate field-days were organized, combining efforts of national research institutions with development supporters at all levels. Exchange visits were organized with Brazilian and other partners as the last 5 World Congresses on CA have seen international partnerships grow in strength, cross-pollinating strengths and fighting challenges with ever-growing vigour. Artisans have


exchanged across the land as policy makers have been challenged to build common ground for upscaling CA. Case studies have been documented and published capturing CA practices as practiced in Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Ghana, among other significant contributions. One of the best examples of what FAO has done for the region is the establishment of what should now be emulated and grown in terms of national and regional task forces. In realization of a need for a regional stakeholder coordination body that would help form and reform national task force efforts the FAO office for Southern Africa formed the Conservation Agriculture Regional Working Group (CARWG). This was founded by the Expert Consultation Group that sat in Harare in 2007. CARWG encouraged the formation of national task forces composed of Government Departments, Farmer’s Unions, Private Equipment & Input Suppliers, Donors, UN Agencies, NGOs, Research and Training Institutions. CARWG membership was drawn from:

o Chairs of National CA Task Forces o RECs (COMESA, NEPAD, SADC) o Research (CIMMYT, ICRAF, ICRISAT, GART) o NGOs (ACT, CARE, World Vision, Concern) o FANRPAN o Agricultural Unions (SACAU)

1.3 Why Conservation Agriculture With Trees? In setting the scene for CAWT, Garitty (2011) makes several observations. He noted that that the short-term advantages observed where CA is currently practiced are earlier planting to enable better use of seasonal rainfall, and increased rainwater conservation in the soil to better tide crops over during drought periods (reported by Rockstrom et al 2009). He noted there are a number of unique constraints to smallholder adoption of CA that are retarding its more rapid uptake. Most important among these are:

competing uses for crop residues where livestock production is common, inadequate biomass accumulation of cover crops in the off-season,

increased labor demands for weeding when herbicides are not used,

variable yield results across soil types, and

the need for greater application of organic and inorganic nutrients.

He refers to Giller et al. (2009) who discussed these constraints and pointed out that most African smallholders are engaged in both crop and livestock production, and that their available fodder resources are usually very inadequate. Thus, farmers must typically use all of their available crop residues for animal fodder or fuel, and cannot afford to retain these valuable materials as a soil cover. This highlights the imperative to find other ways to increase plant biomass. In addition, more than 75% of African smallholders are not applying


any inorganic fertilizers, often because of cash constraints and high climatic risk. Thus, low yields and soil fertility decline in CA are inevitable if greater use of biological nitrogen fixation and more efficient nutrient cycling are not practiced (Garrity 2011). In recent times ICRAF has been engaging the world to focus on new thinking, to view and engage trees as part of good agricultural practice. They approach this with the premise that trees are part and parcel of agriculture. That carefully selected trees can be grown inside the crop and not on the edges or land partitions alone. That trees are not just for forests, soil structural protection and wind-breaking but for the soil, the crop and the livestock nutrition.

1.4 Background to the Study Land degradation, erosion, drought and climate change have caused agricultural yields in parts of Africa to fall by up to 50 per cent. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the continent is thus inevitable. The World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) and the Africa Conservation Tillage Network (ACT), with funding from SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) have partnered to implement an initiative called Conservation Agriculture with Trees (CAWT).

The overall goal of CAWT was to promote a continental wide adoption of conservation agriculture and agroforestry to sustain the productive potential of the natural resource base, improve incomes, food security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in sub Saharan Africa. The main focus of this project is to generate the knowledge base required to initiate a mechanism for establishing a robust regional platform that will spearhead the uptake of CAWT for a successful evergreen agriculture revolution. The project worked in Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia and aims to generate three major outputs, namely:

(i) The extent of adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers identified and documented, and the institutional and organizational infrastructure to support up-scaling mapped and analyzed,

(ii) Policy and institutional factors promoting or hindering large scale adoption of conservation agriculture identified, quantified and documented and

(iii) A regional facilitation mechanism for scaling up agroforestry based conservation agriculture identified.

The project was implemented by a team drawn from staff of ICRAF, ACT and focal institutions in target countries. The team received expert advice and feedback on the project direction, policies and services from a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) drawn from the leadership of the two institutions and experts from other institutions.

1.5 Some Out- and Up-Scaling Perspectives The Green Revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s is said to have excelled in Asia but not in Africa. However this revolution should have been considered incomplete by Africans, not because of the apparent chemical use it brought around but because it concentrated on


improving yields without a focus on environmental sustainability and building entrepreneurs out of African farmers. 1.5.1 Is it a matter of science? Science is essential, but not sufficient to ensure productivity growth and food security. Broader socio-economic and environmental factors are influential (see Figure 1). Multi-disciplinary research, together with supportive policies, is required to develop and promote innovation, and ultimately to apply innovation to ensure food security while protecting natural resources. (Shideed, 2011).

Figure 1: Upscaling CA requires appropriate mergers between Science and the broader

socio-economic and environmental factors. (Shideed, 2011). According to Clapperton (2012) all CA stakeholders from farmers to policy makers need to understand CA from a soil and crop nutrition perspective. It is what the plant feeds on, that determines its nutritional content. In other words two great looking vegetables can have very different nutritional content, depending on where they were grown and the quality of soil that that fed them with that which they provide to human bodies, hence for humanity quality of life. It is not always that farmers view CA as a contributor to happy healthy lives


and nations. This is the greatest and comparative advantage that African smallholder farmers have. These farmers grow crops in mixed and not mono-culture systems, conditions for natural CA prospects from a soil-health perspective. These farmers can almost always have something green and growing, soil conditions that, without tillage, have excellent conditions for soil fauna to do its work, for food excellence. Indeed Clapperton (2012) proposed that CA crops in Africa where soils are still virgin and rich with volcanic soil minerals should be certified and sold at premium prices at the market place. The produce can obtain the Food-Alliance marks of quality subject to thorough laboratory testing. This would be a real and workable incentive for farmers to join the CA movement. 1.5.2 What are the essential ingredients for upscaling? According to ICARDA (2012) the two factors needed for the successful adoption of conservation agriculture for drylands farming are:

1. appropriate technologies and 2. a favourable policy environment.

Locally-made low-cost seeders are needed and require a local market for repair and technical services to farmers. These markets are taking shape today, and are expected to mature in the medium term. But probably the most critical factor needed to encourage the uptake of conservation agriculture is a change in perception among decision makers in low-income countries. For conservation agriculture to spread, ministry officials, extension services and influential large-scale farmers in these regions need to be engaged and informed of the benefits. (ICARDA, 2012) CAWT experts need to adopt innovative and promotional ways of helping policy makers and development partners better appreciate how conservation agriculture works, so they can formulate programs to evaluate how it can contribute to their rural development and food security goals, paving the way for its adoption as they develop national agricultural strategies. 1.5.3 How about semi-arid and arid lands? CA is known to have the most and observable benefits in semi-arid and arid lands. However like expressed in 1.2.2, expansion efforts in these and other areas need to be supported by policy, in order to build sustenance. In North Africa, no-tillage systems have been promoted particularly in Morocco and Tunisia. In Morocco 4000 ha of no-tillage have been reported, despite long-term research on no-till farming having been initiated in the early eighties. Lack of concerted policy support and multi-stakeholder network to promote CA remains a major constraint (Mrabet, 2008). In Tunisia the promotion and development was farmer centred and the area under no-tillage increased from 27 ha in 1999 to nearly 6000 ha in 2007 and 8000 ha in 2008 (FAO, 2011c).


One other limiting factor for further spread of CA is the unavailability of low cost CA equipment (Kassam et al. 2012). In Morocco, conservation agriculture – using the ‘no till’ approach of minimal ploughing of fields – has been tested and developed since 1984 at the experimental stations and taken to farmers in 1997, in an effort to keep cereal production systems sustainable for the coming years and to address the effects of climate change. Table 2: Quick and observable gains for CA farmers to be motivated to adopt CA practices ________________________________________________________________

Power Time Fuel No. Of Passes Input Requirement Consumption Required

(hp/m) (h/ha) (l/ha) Conventional tillage: 100 to 140 6.5 to 8.5 31 to 45 4

• Deep tillage 50 – 70 3.0 - 4.0 10 - 15 • Secondary tillage 20 - 30 2.0 - 2.5 10 - 12 • Seedbed preparation 15 - 25 1.0 - 1.5 6 - 8 • Seeding 15 0.5 5

Reduced tillage: 50 to 70 3.5 to 5.0 21 to 25 3 • Stubble plowing 20 – 30 2.0 - 3.0 10 - 12 • Seedbed preparation 15 - 25 1.0 - 1.5 6 - 8 • Seeding 15 0.5 5

Minimum tillage: 30 to 40 2.0 to 2.5 11 to 13 2 • Disc harrowing 15 – 25 1.0 - 1.5 5 - 8 • Seeding 15 0.5 5

No-till 25 to 35 0.6 to 1.0 5 to 7 1

______________________________________________________________________

From: ICARDA, 2012

1.5.4 Can savings in fuel and labour cost alone be motivators for upscaling CA? Kassam et al. 2012 reported that the immediate benefits noted by farmers trying the conservation approach are savings in energy cost and reduced time spend in crop labour. North Africa farmers registered savings of up to 40 litres of fuel per hectare and reductions in labour and seed expenses (see Table 2). These are the short-term motivations for farmers to take up conservation practices. The long-term incentives, which being significant benefits to agricultural regions and the country, are natural resource conservation, improved soil fertility and water productivity. To achieve true scaling-up these benefits need to be promoted to farmers and appreciated by them.

ICARDA (2012 further notes that innovative development approaches are needed to inform and demonstrate the benefits of conservation agriculture to farmers. This can be achieved through activities such as:

• Intensive guidance of farmers to change the centuries-old conventional farming heritage.

• On-the-job training and creation of ‘conservation agriculture services’ for farmers in areas such as planting and weed control and for support around other practical issues for the adoption of conservation practices.


• Favouring of subsidies for conservation farm machinery and withdrawing of support for those allocated in conventional practices.

1.5.5 What can be done to address the many challenges of upscaling CA? Overall it has generally been agreed that the greatest hindrances to the up-scaling of CA in Africa are as follows:

• The capacity to generate adequate amounts of biomass (crop residues) to be shared by the soil, animals and humans, more so in semi-arid and arid areas.

• Farmers may not realize it but their major reason for ploughing soils is to kill weeds. Before herbicides can be afforded or soil cover established, weeds can be overwhelming for start-up CA farmer.

• CA needs equipment, even where these are as simple as the hoe or the Jab Planter. Access to equipment, across the value-chain, from direct seeders to sprayers and marketing transport, storage etc.

• General lack of germplasm for soil-nutrition cover-crops and trees that generate the right crop rotations and mixes.

• The mind-sets of conventional farmers, their supporters and even policy makers may not allow for accelerated understanding and appreciation of the impacts of CA practice,

• CA is a set of simultaneous practices and not a single technology, like a new seed or fertilizer. The change to CA farming is long-term and the benefits may not be apparent over the first soil transformation years.

Kassam (2011) summarises what must be done to upscale CA practice in a highly comprehensive way. He does it with adequate direct and indirect reference to policy aspects of CA advancement. Kassam’s expressions are paraphrased here for emphasis and brevity:

Governments should make a firm and sustained commitment to encourage and support CA. This should be expressed in policies which are consistent and mutually reinforcing across the spectrum of government responsibilities, including the mainstreaming of public advisory, research and education services.

Government and other development supporters should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate variability in local ecological and socioeconomic characteristics.

Financial and structural assistance to farmers should be justified by recognition of the public good value of environmental and socioeconomic benefits generated by CA.

CA is knowledge intensive and those who promote it or practice it require training. Learning about the new way of farming is required not only by farmers, but by all stakeholders in agricultural production, including research and education, extension and training.

Training for CA which is by its own nature knowledge-intensive should comprise not only the agronomy but also the nature, existence and handling of the new technologies, be they chemicals or equipment options.


National and international knowledge systems must increasingly align their work in research, education and extension to help to promote CA systems and practices.

Research programmes need to be inculcated in long-term national development plans and agenda carefully developed to solve farmer and policy constraints to CA adoption and spread. Research content must go beyond academic and reductive comparisons and analyses of different systems into solving practical farming and marketing problems that discourage business farming.

The greatest impact that should be sought by all parties advancing CA is its adoption as a matter of way of life, environmental stewardship and policy for agriculture development in the future everywhere. Indeed CA can and should become part of the solution of addressing national, regional and global challenges including poverty, hunger, resource degradation, land, water and energy scarcity, and climate change.


Chapter 2:

Summary of the national governmental agricultural performance platform for growing CAWT policy

As this study was being conducted national teams or consultants had been appointed from the participating countries of Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana, to prepare national status papers that defined the policy interventions and position, possibilities and challenges faced by CAWT upscaling efforts. The findings of these papers by Zambia’s Schula (2011), Tanzania’s Shetto (2012), Kenya’s Ng’endo (2011) and Gahna’s Oduro and Bosu (2012) are summarized here.

2.1 Status of Zambia Agricultural Sector Performance

Zambia: approximately 752,000 km2 with a total population of 13 million earns > 90% of her

income from copper export earnings. Zambia’s macroeconomic situation has improved in

the last 10 years driven by macroeconomic and public sector reforms, with annual economic

growth increasing on average from 4.8% to 6.1%, and falling average annual inflation from

20% to 11 % in recent years. Zambia has made good progress in 7/11 MDG indicators, in

particular - child malnutrition, primary education, infant mortality and the incidence of

malaria. Targets on hunger, education, gender equality and HIV&AIDS are likely to be

achieved by 2015.

National poverty levels have reduced somewhat since 1998, but remain high with 64 % of

the population ranked as poor and 51 % as extremely poor in 2006. Poverty in rural areas is

significantly higher than in urban areas, with female headed households more likely to be

poor than those headed by men. Agriculture is the main source of income and employment

for more than 60 % of the population, and especially for women, who constitute 65 % of the

rural population.

Agriculture contributes 20% to national GDP though close to 85% of the population

participates in agriculture. Productivity of labour and land is low; use of inorganic fertilizer is

also low and not increasing despite strong government intervention. Agriculture and food

security in Zambia is highly vulnerable to soil erosion and changing climatic conditions due to

intensity of rainfall and temperature fluctuations;

Smallholder farming sector numbers approximately 1.1 million households, over 20 % of

which are women headed. These cultivate on average 1.5 ha of land, generally using low-

input levels and hand-hoe technology, relying primarily on family labour. They produce

principally for household consumption.


Zambia has 50,000 emergent farmers who cultivate between 5 and 20 ha, typically with

draught power, greater use of purchased inputs, and hired labour; and their production is

predominantly for sale. The vast majority of such farmers operate along the line-of-rail that

traverses the country from south-west to north-east.

There are some 1,500 large-scale commercial farmers, including a sizeable number of

Zimbabweans who have relocated to Zambia. These generally cultivate upwards of 50 ha,

have extensive mechanization. There is also a limited number of large corporate operations,

farming thousands of hectares of crops, some incorporating thousands of head of cattle. The

establishments are managed by hired professionals who are vertical integrated to agro-

processing industry.

2.2 Status of Tanzania Agricultural Sector Performance

Tanzania population: 43 million. Population distribution is extremely uneven, with density

varying from 1 person per square kilometre in arid regions to 51 per square kilometre in the

mainland's well-watered highlands, to 134 per square kilometre on Zanzibar.

Agriculture accounts for about 24.1% of the GDP and about 74 percent of the population live

and earn their living in the rural areas with agriculture as the mainstay of their living. At

household level, the sale of agricultural products remains an important income generating

activity accounting for about 70% of rural household incomes implying that the sector is vital

in sustaining the livelihoods of the majority of the rural population.

Several policies, strategies, economic reforms have been undertaken since independence

resulting in a steady growth of the economy with the GDP increasing from 1.5% in 1983 to

7% in 2010. However, the modest achievements in the economy are yet to be reflected in

the agricultural sector. The sector has only been growing at an average rate of 4% per

annum over the last decade.

Many policies were formulated in the 1990s and 2000s some to address issues of soil conservation and sustainable land management such as:

National Agriculture and Livestock Policy of 1997

National Livestock Policy of 2006, the National Irrigation Policy of 2010,

Food and Nutrition Policy of 1992,

National Environmental Policy of 1997,

Draft National Agriculture Policy of 2011


and numerous others

Generally, the policy environment recognizes the effects of land degradation and the need of adopting better farming practices. However, the implementation and enforcement of the policies and strategies at farm level remains unfelt. A summary of status of CAWT in Tanzania has been presented by her CA experts as follows (Shetto, 2012): 2.2.1 Awareness on CA and CAWT Several projects in sustainable land and water management have been conducted in the

past, including Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga (HASHI), Hifadhi Ardhi Dodoma (HADO), The

Smallholder Development project for Marginal Areas (SDPMA), Soil Erosion Control

Agroforestry Project (SECAP), Soil Conservation and Agroforestry Project (SCAPA),

Hifadhi Mazingira (HIMA), Land Management Programme (LAMP), Conservation

Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (CA-SARD I and II) and

others.

However awareness of CAWT remains insufficient among decision makers,

administrators, researchers and even extension agents.

2.2.2 Coordination in Sustainable Land Management Systems Little coordination among the various actors, whereby interventions are carried out in

isolation.

Partnership among various government ministries, NGOs, donors, and communities are

insufficient to align, harmonize and create more synergy for coordinated investments.

2.2.3 Inadequate Extension Services Advisory services on sustainable land management systems are usually inadequate and

there are a limited number of extension staff. There are currently only 5,181 extension

officers compared to the required 15,082 to carry out the services more efficiently.

The research-extension-farmer linkage is usually poor. Many technological innovations

are yet to be adopted by the majority of farmers because they are unknown to them or

there are no effective delivery systems in place.

2.2.4 Training on CA and CAWT URT -2007 - initiated a compressive 5 years training programme for extension officers.

The programme trained 12,227 extension officers by 2012 so as to enable each village

and ward to have an agricultural extension officer.


The training in the colleges however, still concentrates on conventional tillage practices

with the accompanying machinery and implements such as ploughs and harrows. New

curriculum include of various aspects of conservation agriculture is yet to be introduced.

2.2.5 Research and development: The R & D system is constrained by inadequate financing, limited laboratory and testing

equipment and limited human capacity.

Recently the government has provided funds to the Tanzania Commission for Science

and Technology (COSTECH) to support the development of research in the country.

However, in the year 2011/2012; out of the 53 research projects approved by COSTECH

for funding only 4 were on land management.

2.2.6 Financing Agricultural Technologies: Financing institutions are generally reluctant to finance the sector due to the risks

involved. Stringent borrowing conditions difficult to be met by most smallholder farmers

are huge hindrances.

Agricultural Inputs Fund (AGITF) in 1994 provided soft loans to smallholder farmers.

Tanzania Investment Bank has provided finance for agricultural projects in recent times.

However the available funds are inadequate, failing to meet the needs of many farmers.

With the exception of Savings and Credit Co-Operatives (SACCOS) which operate at

micro-level, smallholder farmers are hardly financed and there is no clear financial

policy to support them.

2.2.7 Incentive Packages Subsidy scheme for fertilizer and seed (2004) and was extended to coffee and tea

seedlings. CAWT aspects like agro-forestry trees are yet to be included in the package.

Lessons from Malawi show that subsidies can be a strong incentive to farmers and tree

propagation. By training farmers and providing them with tree seeds, and nursery

materials, more than 120,000 farmers have adopted the technology in the two years of

programme operation (Garrity et al. 2010).

2.2.8 Trade Offs Many farmers face difficulties in maintaining Permanent Soil Cover. Crop residue left in

the field after harvesting is grazed by livestock during the dry season as in many parts of

the country free range grazing is practiced.

Many villages do not have by laws to restrict free grazing and where bylaws exist the

enforcement is usually difficult to sustain.


2.3 Status of Kenya Agricultural Sector Performance

The Agricultural sector is the backbone of the national economy contributing directly 24% of

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 65% of the export earnings. In addition, the sector

provides the livelihood of over 80% of the Kenyan population and their food security. A

number of guiding policies and strategies have greatly influenced the sector including

Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS), the Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA) and now

the Vision 2030 (GoK, 2007). Population is approximately 40 Million and total surface area is

587,000km2 of which some 11,000km2 is under water. Arable land is 92,000 Ha. High and

Medium Potential land makes 16%, the balance 84% being Arid and Semi Arid Lands

[ASALs].

Agriculture contributes: Contributes 26% directly and 27% indirectly, through linkages with manufacturing and other related services; to national GDP. The sector employs about 80% of rural population and accounts for 40% export earnings in Tea, Horticulture, Coffee and Pyrethrum. The sector contributes 45% of Government Revenue and contributes 75% of industrial raw material for domestic agro-industries. 2.3.1 Historical perspective It can be argued that Kenya has been soil and water conservation sensitive from as early as 1937. This is because most of her soils are in sloppy or vulnerable semiarid lands. From then until the year of independence in 1963 the colonial government noticed the declining soil fertility and productivity. The government imposed compulsory soil conservation practices in all cultivated lands. This was enforced by administration and extension officers specializing effort under the African Land Development Board (ALDEV) of 1946 – 55. The ALDEV aimed to recondition African areas of settlement. The Government of Kenya Registered Land Act (Cap. 300) of 1963 was legislated to govern land formerly under the customary law. This law encouraged individualization of tenure in line with the agronomic arguments mooted in the Swynnerton Plan (1953 – 1957) which aimed to improve the economy of African producers by sound land management practices. Under this plan Soil Conservation Stations were established. The plan was instituted to guide intensified agricultural development in the rural areas

(reserves) by encouraging individualization of tenure and to provide security of tenure

through Title Deeds. The land reform programme in the reserves had three key stages of

adjudication, consolidation and registration.

As times passed Kenyans developed a hard skin towards colonial governance. Coercion and

restriction were part of the growing political agitation that preached defiance. Previous soil

and water conservation efforts suffered the same growing attitude of defiance. This saw


increasing destruction of neglected soil conservation structures, vegetation and forest cover.

At independence a Native Government move commenced the settling of the ‘landless’ in the

Settlement Schemes which today are all over the country, and mostly in the semi-arid lands.

After five years of independence, the Land Adjudication Act (Cap. 284) was amended to

cater for group rights particularly in pastoral and nomadic areas where individualization had

little success.

Continuous and accelerated erosion into post-independence days recorded a stiff decline in

soil fertility. This led to the formation of the SIDA funded National Soil and Water

Conservation Project (1974-1993). This project conserved 1.4m farms, trained 800,000

farmers, 50,000 youths, 43000 community leaders, 23000 Government. Officers, 14000

School Teachers. Unfortunately this programme which provided farmers with free hoes and

shovels among other equipment grew a contagious dependency syndrome, that curtailed

the individual land management efforts of the previous times.

To today land remains a matter of great importance and sense of wealth. Indeed, Kenyan

land resources remain a source of identity and wealth symbolism and they can be and have

been a great source of conflict. In this regard, in 2003, a commission of inquiry into the

illegal and irregular allocation of public land, the Ndungu Commission, was set up. In 2007

Kenyans suffered much loss in what could have escalated to a Civil war. In the middle of it,

previous land injustices featured quietly.

Over time Kenya has had various policies with various incentives for sustainable land and water management (SLWM). Six of these which were analyzed under this project are: i) Agriculture Act (Chapter 318) ii) Agriculture (Basic Land Usage) Rules iii) Agriculture (Farm Forestry) Rules (2009) iv) Forests Act, 2005 v) National Land Policy vi) Agricultural Sector Development Strategy was the most elaborate as it established

the Agricultural Sector Coordination unit (ASCU) in an effort to merge the effort of 10 Agricultural Sector Ministries to provide a more integrated policy framework with minimum duplication and increased efficiency.

2.3.2 Status of CA and its advancement in Kenya: Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable

Agriculture and Rural Development (CA-SARD) and Beyond The CA-SARD Project was piloted under FAO sponsorship in two phases in the pilot Districts of Bungoma, Siaya, Nakuru, Mbeere and Laikipia between 2004 and 2011. The first phase was coordinated by an NGO (KENDAT) who (with others) had also led and advanced CA work in Machakos District. The second phase was coordinated by KARI. Its implementation followed a one year Technical Corporation Project (TCP) that grounded the pilots. Funding was from the German Ministry of Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMVEL). The aim of


the project was to facilitate and accelerate adoption of profitable CA practices by small farmers, to contribute to improved food security and rural livelihoods, while building a foundation for the expansion of conservation agriculture (CA) to contribute to SARD. Following the AU/NEPAD declaration on the implementation of CAADP, COMESA commissioned a consultant to review the status of CA in Kenya with a view to developing the way forward for up-scaling the practice. The 2010 study reported:

- Minimum Tillage practice had not been widely adopted in Kenya.

- Soil cover principle in use is mostly mulching. Crop cover was limited and practiced

more as a crop than a CA concept.

- Crop rotation practiced on a limited scale.

- Agroforestry had been adopted on a wide scale.

- Most of the key NGOs in the country were in agriculture but their role in CA

dissemination was not visible.

- CA-SARD had not mutated beyond pilot sites and was not known to farmers.

- Research institutions did not show evidence of CA in their programmes.

- There was need to invest in manufacturing of tools for CA.

In June 2010 a validation workshop was held with stakeholders in Conservation Agriculture

(CA) to discuss and validate the consultant’s report and to develop the way forward. The

workshop agreed that the following national level interventions were needed in order to

propel CA advancement to the next level:

1) Policy formulation on CA: That the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) should formulate a

policy on conservation agriculture. This would outline training of its personnel to

facilitate in CA adoption programmes, development CA equipment support and

provide support services to the farmers with finance among other needs.

2) In-service Trainings for extension officers on CA interventions: That in-service

programmes were important for agricultural officers, artisans, agro-foresters and

private sector seed and other suppliers, in order to conceptualize and promote CA

practices with confidence and vigour.

3) Budgetary allocation: That CA should be promoted as a food security strategy,

requiring expansion of budgetary and other allocation by the Ministry of Agriculture.

4) Monitoring and Evaluation: That M&E was an essential tool for bench-marking and

providing feedback to policy and other supportive programmes and processes.

5) Strengthening Farmer Field Schools: That farmer training centres and other village-

level institutions should advance field-days into more sustainable contacts with

farmers under strengthened and vibrant programmes.

The report identified sector-level interventions as:


Mobilization of CA interest groups like NGOs, UN-agencies, CBOs and other

supporters at household level.

Promotion of CA intervention approaches like modified tools; no-till and minimum

tillage implements through government and other agricultural institutes;

Provision of finance and credit incentives to farmers who have fully adopted CA

strategies.

Improvement of extension services across the entire value-chain.

Design and Implement Support via a representative sector-wide National Advisory

Body to oversee the up-scaling of CA in the country.

Figure 2: Proposed Organizational Structures for Implementing CA

The 2010 COMESA/GoK meeting articulated a Donor-driven project implementation

arrangement meant to kill constraints in CA implementation strategies as shown in Figure 2.

The model was said to incorporate direct donor access to farmers through institutional

structures or interest groups. The gathering believed that this was in line with the current

Government policy on decentralization of services and resources. The arrangement stated

that where applicable, it would be imperative for donors to get government consent before

embarking on CA projects. The proposed implementation matrix (Figure 2) is shown above.


The gathering agreed that investment in CA technologies and reduced government

bureaucracies in facilitating farmers would result in the following components:

Reduced release of green gases into the atmosphere.

High build up and sustained biological processes in the soil.

High production per unit area.

Reduced pressure on farm land due to high population pressure.

Effective purification of the atmosphere of green gases.

Reduced pollution on both natural water sources as well as the atmosphere.

Conservation of wonder trees which currently face extinction.

Conservation of soil ecological status.

Reduced cost of production which in turn leads to high farm profits.

The workshop concluded that:

- CA shall be understood to refer to farming practices that incorporate the three

principles of CA including agroforestry.

- There would be need to develop a CA policy.

- Development of an investment and implementation framework for up-scaling CA in

Kenya was necessary and

- A task force for up-scaling of CA in Kenya needed to be established.

2.3.3: Analysis of Policies, Strategies and Action Plans In Kenya, CA policies and implementation may fall under the Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU) established in 2005, as an inter-ministerial unit, to address the fragmentation of the responsibilities between different agriculture and rural development-related ministries tasked with implementing the Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA) in Kenya. This was done in response to Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation. The SRA provided policy and institutional environment that is conducive to increasing agricultural productivity, promoting investment, and encouraging private sector involvement in agricultural enterprises and agribusiness to contribute to the reduction of poverty and hunger. Its initiatives were in tandem with stated government policies and strategies such as the draft National Food and Nutrition Policy and many others that root for sustainability in the production systems and reduction of prevalence of HIV/AIDs. Under ASCU, the Kenyan Government has come up with Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2009 – 2020 (ASDS). Among other aspects the ASDS offers an effective approach to water resource management in tandem with the “blue revolution” where water is managed to boost the productivity and the sustainability of the agricultural sector. It redefines market access through enhanced development of co-operatives and agri-business; value addition to farm produce for future use and the involvement of the private sector in the agriculture


sector. Key to its functions is the empowerment of the smallholders and vulnerable households through credit facilities and microfinance systems. ASCU coordinates implementation of the ASDS in 10 sector Ministries under six thematic working groups led by non-government actors and incorporating development partners:

• Legal, regulatory and institutional reforms, • Research and extension advisory services, • Access to agricultural inputs and financial services, • Food security and nutrition policy and programmes, • Agribusiness, value addition and market access, • Environment, sustainable land and natural resource management, the best placed

home of CAWT efforts to prosper. Kenya has already embarked on a long-term economic policy, the Vision 2030. The vision seeks to turn the country into a medium income nation between 2008 and 2030, a period of 22 years. The Agriculture sector is anticipated to play a key role in achieving this Vision, helping prove a high quality life to all its citizens operating upon three pillars, the economic, the social and the political (pillars). The various targets of this Vision are:

Enhanced Equity and Wealth Creation Opportunities for the Poor,

Investment in arid and semi-arid districts, and other communities with high incidence of poverty,

Unemployed youth, women, and all vulnerable groups.

Devolved funds, deployed in a more efficient and transparent manner,

Play a key and enhanced role in correcting existing economic and social inequalities. Conservation Agriculture is one of the Concepts that have been adopted towards this end. The following two strategic thrusts are relevant to achieving the Vision and enhancing Conservation Agriculture:

i) Transforming land use to ensure better utilization of high and medium potential lands, and

ii) Developing arid and semi-arid areas, which constitute 80% of the national land mass, for production of both crops and livestock.

2.3.4 Review Major Public and Private Sector Institutional Arrangements Institutional frameworks for CA implementation are directly through existing government structures including the farm level agricultural extension–research establishments as shown on Figure 3. The MOA closely backs up field work through its field officers, and the Rural Technology Development Centres with support of knowledge generated by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). The MOA addresses regional and national agricultural constraints through on-farm, adaptive and applied research. MOA appreciates donor funded


projects which contribute towards capacity building across all aspects of the agricultural development and growth agenda.

Figure 3: Organizational Structure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya (Courtesy MOA

website) Key to extension services of the Ministry is the SIDA sponsored National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP) conducted with a focal area strategic scheme that spreads extension services across the country. In this case, a District Stakeholder Forum selects a Division, with few or no development agencies active. An established Division Stakeholder Forum consisting of male and female farmers, project and NGO representatives, commercial representatives, and CBOs identify a Focal Area embracing some 2000 households. The Division Extension Team, together with Field Extension carries out data collection, including poverty mapping and individual farm planning. Relevant opportunities


are identified and Common Interest Groups (CIGs) formed based on farmers’ choices (MOA(K) 2010). After the World Congress on Conservation Agriculture (2005) which was hosted by a number CA based organizations sprung up. The CA-SARD project efforts expanded its initiatives in promoting improved socio-economic growth, food security and livelihoods in most parts of Kenya. As a result, a critical mass of trained farmers and extension workers and active CA Farmer Field School groups were strengthened. Farmers were able to sustain increased food security in the project areas. Participating Non-governmental Organizations such as KENDAT, Swedish SCC-Vi Agroforestry, A Rocha Kenya, etc. teamed with KARI, CIRAD, ICRAF, ACT and FAO to build recognizable impact of CA and agro-forestry practices across the country.

2.4 Status of Ghana Agricultural Sector Performance

Ghana has a population of 24.2 million (2010 census). The agricultural sector contributes

30% of GDP and 65% of the nation’s employment. Export earnings from the sector are 50%,

while supply of domestic food needs make 90%.

Ghanaian agricultural production has 2 main zones, the forested Southern section and the

Northern Savannah zone. Agriculture is grossly rain-fed and like the soils it is highly variable

across the 2 zones. Most food crop farms are intercropped, allowing for little mechanization

in the forest zone and more in the Savannah zone in a country where 90% of farm holdings

are less than 2 hectares. There is widespread soil and land degradation, a major challenge to

sustainable agricultural production. CAWT interventions are timely and needed.

2.4.1 National policy interventions

Over time there has been numerous policy-level interventions such as:

National Development Policy Framework/Ghana Vision 2020 (1996-2020) aimed at

the long-term perspective for Ghana’s socio-economic development. Among many

aspects, the Vision foresees a robust, diversified and commercially oriented

agricultural sector, capable of maintaining a sound and sustainable environment

while generating employment opportunities.

Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy, GPRS (2003-2005) aimed to create wealth by

transforming the nature of the economy to achieve growth, accelerated poverty

reduction and the protection of the vulnerable and excluded within a decentralized,

democratic environment. The strategies for poverty reduction included promotion of

commercial agriculture using environmentally friendly technologies; and agro-based

industrial expansion.


Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy, GPRS II (2006-2009) was anchored on

prioritizing: continued macroeconomic stability; accelerated private sector-led

growth; vigorous human resource development; good governance and civic

responsibility. In the GPRS II, agriculture was to be the basis for economic growth and

structural transformation in order to maximize the benefits of accelerated growth.

Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA), 2010-2013: forms the

basis for the preparation of development plans and annual budgets at the sector and

district levels throughout the country.

The Government considers the modernization of agriculture as a pre-condition for the

structural transformation of the economy and the sustainable reduction in the incidence of

poverty, and therefore focuses policy options on the modernization of agriculture.

2.4.2 Other Policies, Strategies and Plans Supportive of CAWT

The Soil Fertility Management Plan (1998) which encouraged the sustainable use of lands, by

promoting crop rotations, agroforestry and soil and moisture conservation practices.

National Agroforestry Policy (1986) with the objective of promoting agroforestry

practices for sustainable land use.

The National Land Policy whose provisions included:

a) Guaranteeing security and protection of land rights,

b) Ensuring sustainable land use and

c) Enhancing land capacity and land conservation

Others were:

- National Transport Policy

- National Policy on HIV/AIDS

- The National Forest and Wildlife Policy

- The National Forestry Development Master Plan (1996)

- The Ghana Environmental Policy (1991)

- National Environmental Action Plan (1991)

National Action Programme to Combat Desertification (NAP): that provides a long-term

strategy to address land degradation in affected areas of Ghana. The main purpose of

NAP is to identify the causes of desertification in the country, recommend possible

prevention and remedial actions to reduce the impact of drought, and halt the rate of

desertification in the country.

FASDEP II (The Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy), which is to guide

development and interventions in the agriculture sector. FASDEP II seeks to enhance the


environment for all categories of farmers, while targeting poor and risk-prone and risk-

averse producers.

METASIP (Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan) which seeks to enhance

economic growth, create employment, increase incomes, reduce poverty, achieve food

security and enhance rural development

The Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Development Strategy that seeks to stimulate

agricultural production by increasing access to technology for sustainable natural

resource management.


Chapter 3.0 National Programmes and Partnerships Participating or Sought to

Drive CAWT to the Next Level

3.1 Zambia CAWT Partners

In 1999, Zambia Government, declared Conservation Farming (CF) a priority for promotion

by both MACO and the various partner Institutions, such as the CFU, GART, LM&CF and its

successor programme, Agriculture Support Programme (ASP) and the World Agroforestry

Centre (ICRAF) in order to address the issue of low farm productivity and sustainable

production.

Vision for the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL) is to scale up CA among small scale

farmers (SSFs) to increase farm productivity and sustainable production. However, up-scaling

of CA has been limited due to:

1) Need for constant intense extension support,

2) Limited access to inputs,

3) Support of the learning process by SSFs,

4) Low involvement of MAL in CA implementation and,

5) Lack of a platform for sharing evidence-based results.

3.1.1 Zambian National Programmes and Projects Promoting CAWT

Conservation agriculture scaling up for increased productivity and production

(CASPP)

Food security pack programme (FSP)

Conservation agriculture programme (CAP I and II)

Farmer Input Support Response Initiative (FISRI)

Social Ecological Systems Program

Conservation Farming Methods Program

Adaptation to the effects of drought and climate change in agro-ecological regions I

and II in Zambia (AEDCCZ)

Sustainable Miombo Ecosystem Project


World Food Program with COMACO-based market incentives

UN collaborative programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation (UN-REDD)

3.1.2 Roles of various organizations:

Actor Organizational mandate Conservation agriculture Roles Responsibilities Target areas

Technical Services Branch(TSB), Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL)

Planning, coordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of land resources conservation policy, legislation, programs and projects in the country

Secretariat of the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force

Farmer training, outreach, implementation of CAWT

Nation-wide

Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS), Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL)

Planning, coordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of agricultural extension programs and projects in the country

Secretariat of the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force

Farmer training, outreach together with TSB personnel at District Agricultural Offices

Nation-wide

Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI)

Planning, coordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of agricultural research programs and projects in the country

Member, National Conservation Agriculture Task Force

Agricultural Research and Development Programmes

Nation -wide

Conservation Farming Unit (CFU)

to increase production and income levels of small scale farmers through improved agricultural practices with sustained conservation and management of the natural resources base


Farmer training, outreach, research

Localised: 10 Districts

Zambia National Peasant and Small Scale Farmers Association (ZNPSFA)

an umbrella association of all farmer associations


Farmer training, outreach, CA demonstrations and Brokerage

Nation-wide

University of Zambia,

Teaching undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, research and outreach


Training, research, outreach

Localised


Natural Resources Development College

Teaching Diploma graduates and outreach

- Training, research, outreach

Localised

Zambia National Farmers Union

An umbrella body for all farmers cooperatives and associations

National Conservation Agriculture Taskforce

Brokerage Nationwide

Care International Facilitates Aid to partner organizations

- Farmer training and outreach

Localised

Word-Vision Zambia

Implementation - Farmer training and outreach

Localised

3.1.3 Existing Institutional Arrangements:

1) The Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock at National Level

(i) Mandate to: (1) attain and sustain household food self-sufficiency and to improve the

nutritional status of the population; (2) expand and diversify agricultural production and

exports; (3) increase farm incomes; (4) conserve the natural resource base; (5) formulate

agricultural policies, legislation and regulations with stakeholder participation; (6) generate

and disseminate agricultural information and technologies; (7) regulate and ensure quality

control of agricultural produce and services; and (8) monitor and manage the food security

situation.

(ii) Organized into 10 departments: that report directly to the Ministry’s Permanent

Secretary : (1) Agriculture; (2) Animal Health; (3) Livestock Development; (4) Fisheries, (5)

Marketing; (6) Cooperatives; (7) Policy and Planning, (8) Human Resources; (9) Zambia

Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI) and (10) Seed Certification and Control Unit (SCCI).

(iii) MAL operates hierarchically at 10 Provincial levels and over 70 district levels; under

either a Programme Agriculture Coordinators (PACO) or a District Agriculture Coordinator

respectively. These are further sub divided into Agriculture Extension Blocks, and

Agriculture Camps. Under the Decentralisation Programme, the Ministry links to the Area

Development Committees as the lower level local government planning structures

coordinating development.

(iv) Ministry’s key stakeholders: other government ministries and departments, public sector

institutions, NGOs, development partners, small and large-scale farmers, farmers’

associations, input suppliers, agro-processors, international agriculture research centres, and

produce buyers.


2) National Conservation Agriculture Task Force

NCATF has been in existence since 2007 with a mandate to promote the uptake of

conservation agriculture in the country, in line with regional efforts (CARWG).

NCATF

- facilitates networking of conservation agriculture implementers,

- advocates and influence agriculture and other policies related to conservation

agriculture;

- facilitates the development, packaging and dissemination of conservation

agriculture through stakeholder consultation;

- facilitates capacity building among stakeholders;

- participates in regional and global conservation agriculture related fora;

- monitors and evaluates conservation agriculture activities in the country and;

- solicits funding to support expansion of conservation agriculture activities in

Zambia.

The MAL currently holds the Chairmanship of NCATF and the Department of Agriculture

is the Secretariat. NCATF is made up of voluntary members on invitation by the NCATF

Secretariat. A Conservation Agriculture Association (Chaired by NCATF Chairperson) with

GART as Secretariat augments efforts of NCATF.

3.1.4 Implications for Current Policy Environment for expanding CAWT

1. A transforming strategy

a poverty alleviating transformation of Agricultural sector, providing farmers

necessary services & conditions that increase incomes, expands and strengthens

access to agricultural inputs, improves research and extension services, introduces

smallholder friendly technologies, improves access to local & international markets,

reduces barriers to land acquisition, enhances use of sustainable land management

technologies, increases investment in irrigation.

technologies generated must be appropriate, reach, and be adopted by large

numbers of farmers , address real problems that vulnerable populations face in

breaking out of the poverty trap.

fundamental to success of this strategy are agricultural research and outreach

institutions that are able to work with farmers across gender, age and wealth barriers

to increase productivity, profitability, and sustainability of agriculture in Zambia.

achieving better profitability and sustainability requires improved management of

agricultural resources, combined with increased efficiencies in managing inputs and


outputs at all stages of the production chain, adoption of new technologies, and

extension of use of existing technologies, such as reduced tillage, mechanization,

water harvesting and irrigation, range management, crop protection and animal

health, and crop storage.

the essence of the strategy recommended is to enable, through appropriate policy

and strategic interventions, the speedy and efficient implementation of conservation

agriculture with trees as an integrated strategy that achieves better profitability and

sustainability in sustainable agriculture production systems.

2. Institutional frameworks

Lack of capacity, weak institutions, a weak civil society, and repeated donor bail-outs

have permitted even the best policies and programs to be ignored, subverted or

delayed to the point of being ineffective. Develop and reinforce current coordinated

collaboration between development partners, local NGOs, training and research

institutions and other agencies.

3. Leverage improved income from market-oriented strategies:

by increasing productivity through efficiently using fertiliser, improved seeds and

purchase of inputs at optimal cost and access to markets for their produce through

establishing entrepreneural market information systems and development of a

network of agro-dealers contextualised as a link to open up new income streams.

4. Land degradation

addressing effects of soil fertility depletion and expansion of agriculture into marginal

and unsuitable land as a major threat to sustainable land and water resources

utilization.

5. Gender, health and nutrition 6. Climate change adaptation and mitigation

3.1.5 Way Forward for CAWT at National Level:

Zambia articulates a robust way forward on several considered aspects of Policy for CAWT:

Policy

Aspect

Policy Options Policy Development Strategies

Poverty

Reduction

Increasing agricultural productivity

through CA/CAWT to significantly

contribute to the reduction of rural

poverty levels

Develop CA/CAWT policies that are geared towards contributing

to stabilizing food production and food prices;

Develop CA/CAWT programmes aimed at facilitating enhanced

market access for small scale and emerging farmers and providing opportunities for


diversified income generation.

Health Increasing agricultural productivity

through CA/CAWT to provide an

adequate supply of diverse foods

which is a key determinant of

adequate nutrition and health

Promote programmes which facilitate development of awareness programmes on

nutrition arising from productivity enhancement capacity of CA/CAWT; Promote

good practices with regard to handling and utilization of pesticides, herbicides,

fertilisers and other agro-chemicals

Equity Promote participation of previously

disadvantaged groups, including

women, youth and the disabled in

CA/CAWT thus ensuring

sustainability and food security for

all.

Develop programmes and projects aimed at empowering women, youth and the

disabled and support their full participation in CA/CAWT programmes and ensure

their integration in the agricultural industry;

Ensure that policies and programmes promote women’s equal access, to and full

participation in, decision-making at all levels in CA/CAWT production systems;

Ensure that gender perspectives are mainstreamed in all CA/CAWT policy

development and implementation strategies.

Facilitate equitable access to public information to support decision making related

to CA/CAWT development and implementation;

Empower communities and their local groups to make informed decisions in meeting

essential food, water and energy needs while employing CA/CAWT for the

conservation of resources and environment.

Ensure that policy formulation and implementation for CA/CAWT is guided by

principles of accountability, transparency and broad-based public participation to

promote the empowerment of people living in poverty and their organizations.

Develop CA/CAWT programmes aimed at the marginalised and enable them to

increase access to productive resources and public services and institutions;

Facilitate equitable access to CA/CAWT technology and its transfer in appropriate

language, level of communication, and transfer medium in order to align it with the

needs of targeted communities and their level of understanding

Un-

employment

CA programmes that focus on

improving the well-being of rural

people and creation of new

opportunities and enterprises in

agricultural production and service

provision that could revolutionalise

rural industrialization

Transfer of CA/CAWT as a sustainable technology for agricultural entrepreneurial

development to rural communities through strong national agricultural research

programmes;

Improve private and public partnerships in supporting rural agricultural

entrepreneurial development, through agro-processing and other value adding

initiatives for rural products;

Promote CA/CAWT programmes that encourage innovative entrepreneurial

development for rural agricultural produce, by creation of market opportunities and

availability of information;

Facilitate the creation of new employment opportunities for off-farm employment,

through CA/CAWT backward and forward linkages

Agricultural

Research

Systems

Ensure optimization of available

resources through involvement of a

wide spectrum of role players in

engaging research challenges of

CA/CAWT

Improve public and private funding for research in CA/CAWT

Promote the development of new crop varieties that are capable of higher yields, can

adapt to CA/CAWT conditions and are tolerant to adverse conditions, pests, and

diseases;

Integrate and strengthen national research and extension services and farmer


organizations to trigger farmer-to-farmer exchange on good CA/CAWT practices

Develop research policies, which focus on identifying and removing constraints to the

development of viable CA/CAWT technology options

Develop programmes aimed at making agricultural extension, education and

communication more responsive to CA/CAWT farmer needs.

Develop and promote investment in human capital, access to databases of best

CA/CAWT practices for technology generation and dissemination

Develop environmentally friendly technologies within the tenets of CA/CAWT that

will use less land, water, supplemental plant nutrients and pesticides;

Management

of Land

Resources

Develop and promote an integrated

approach to land use planning and

management which maintains the

integrity of arable ecosystems with

CA/CAWT as the pillar

Encourage implementation of CA/CAWT under land use and management plans

based on integrated assessments of socio-economic and environmental potential;

Promote the principles of ecological agriculture to help conserve ecological processes

that support life by recycling essential elements, regenerating soils, etc.;

Ensure effective and efficient use of soil fertility improvement practices;

Promote CA/CAWT practices to address the decline in soil organic matter;

Adopt integrated approaches combining increased use of organic manure, mineral

fertilizers, hybrid seeds, and rainwater use for optimal productivity

Identify and implement the principles of the United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification in order to arrest land degradation, including access to information to

improve monitoring and early warning related to desertification and drought;

Promote CA/CAWT practices by establishing networks and disseminate successful

techniques for land conservation and rehabilitation;

Ensure and enhance farmer household participation and involvement of vulnerable

communities, women and youth in CA/CAWT as the pillar for sustainable

management of land resources.

Water-Use

Efficiency

Improve measures that promote

sustainable rainwater harvesting

and use and address rainfall

shortages through integrated water

resources management and water

efficiency plans which embrace the

tenets of CA/CAWT under rain-fed

conditions

Develop and promote appropriate water harvesting technologies within the tenets of

CA/CAWT

Adopt and integrate watershed approach to CA/CAWT practices to improve the

efficiency of rainwater harvesting and use;

Promote scientific understanding of the sustainable use, protection and management

of rainwater resources to farmers and encourage knowledge sharing;

Internalize and integrate indigenous knowledge systems to advance long-term

sustainability of rainwater resources management and promote development of

drought tolerant crops;

Developing

Functional

Markets

Promote farmer organisations and

farmers’ linkages with input and

output markets (agro-dealers)

Supporting agro-based processing and rural entrepreneurship

Strengthening local market organizations and institutions.

Promoting agricultural services through agro-dealership, cooperatives and rural

agricultural education.

Provision of reliable and up-to-date information on marketing opportunities and

trends


3.2 Tanzania CAWT Partners and Progression

CAWT partners in Tanzania are:

3.2.1 Seed Industry Accessing cover crop seeds and agroforestry tree seedlings is difficult.

The seed industry in the country is well established for traditional annual crops such as

maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, sunflower and beans, where institutions like ASA and

TOSCI exist to promote them and private sector manage their multiplication and

distribution.

There is little or no institutional structure to make agroforestry seeds available. This can

be kick-started through public sector investment, paving the way for the private sector

to take up the commercial opportunity.

3.2.2 Markets There is a general lack of well-developed input and product markets to enable

smallholder farmers to access affordable inputs and get premium prices for their well-

attended and quality farm produce.

In most cases markets are thin and poorly organized and traders have a monopoly and

farmers auction their produce as traders fix low and exploitative prices and kill market

price and other dynamics.

Some NGOs assist farmers in establishing market information systems - through radio

programmes, printed media and through SMS services.

The government has recently established the warehouse receipt system and has been

encouraging contract farming as a means to enable farmers to get fair prices for their

produce. Such avenues have to be explored as conservation agriculture with trees is

advanced.

3.2.3 Investment Opportunities and Value Addition CAWT needs a value-chain approach. CAWT should not be seen as an avenue for

improving farm productivity only. It should be seen as opening up other avenues for

improving the livelihoods of the people.

Saving in labour implies time saved may be invested in other income generating

activities.


3.2.4 Private Sector Support Private sector involvement in the CAWT sector is limited. Limited knowledge and

business skills are further constrained by limited investment capital. The up scaling of

CAWT needs a wide range of equipment which is unknown to the majority of the private

sector.

Two companies Nandra Engineering Works and INTERMECH Ltd are now manufacturing

CA implements e.g. jab planters, rippers and animal drawn direct seeders.

The manufacturers claim that they have adequate manufacturing capacity but there is

no demand of the equipment while farmers are complaining of the unavailability of the

equipment in the market. Initial support is needed for manufacturers to kick start the

process and extensive demonstrations on the equipment have to be conducted to

stimulate the demand.

3.2.5 Progression

Strategic action areas for scaling up CAWT in Tanzania are:

Awareness creation on Conservation Agriculture with trees

Capacity building in Conservation Agriculture with trees

Technology dissemination - methods

Research and Development

Increasing availability and accessibility of agro inputs and implements

Value Addition

Coordination and Legal framework

The way forward for CAWT is for it to be implemented under the framework of Agricultural

Sector Development Programme (ASDP). The ASMLS including the VPO will be the main

actors at national level and the LGAs will facilitate and guide farmers in formulating and

implementing projects on conservation agriculture with trees through DADPs. It is proposed

for the National Task Force on Conservation Agriculture with Trees to take up the

coordination role. Consultations with MAFC, VPO, MNRT, NASCO and ICRAF will be made as

they are among the main players.

3.3 Kenya CAWT Partners

Kenya has had several efforts at institutionalizing agroforestry. Efforts to formalize

institutional cooperation on various aspects of agroforestry were identified including:

Setting up of a NSCAR under NCST with all main governmental and NGO "actors"

being members.

Drafting an MoU for ministerial cooperation and coordination of agroforestry efforts

in Kenya,


Developing six agroforestry centres to be valuable extension tools for both the

Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

Setting up a National Tree Seed Committee to coordinate issues related to quality

control and dissemination of tree seeds throughout Kenya

The study by Ng’endo 2011, captures some of the policy interventions of Kenya Government. Some of these are included here as examples of what a Government anxious to advance development can do at policy level, hence possible interventions or implications for CAWT. Of special interest is the one on land tenure, a matter that affects CAWT sustenance grossly. The Ministry of Agriculture Strategic Plan (2006-2010) was revised in order to embrace new strategies that address emerging issues and constraints. Eight strategic issues and corresponding objectives were flagged including:

Pyrethrum Industry Policy and Amendments of the Pyrethrum Act Chapter 340:

aimed at facilitating the liberalization of the pyrethrum industry and separation of

the commercial from regulatory functions of the Pyrethrum Board of Kenya.

The National Seed Industry Policy: to

- give a clear direction for the development of a sustainable seed industry

capable of availing high quality seed and planting materials to farmers and

- harmonize all seed related activities and legislation.

National Agriculture Sector Extension Policy (NASEP) aimed to guide and regulate the

provision of the agricultural extension service, giving it a sector-wide dimension and

representation.

Sugar Policy and Amendment of Sugar Act No. 10 of 2001 aimed at restructuring the

sugar industry to make it more efficient and competitive in view of increased regional

and global trade.

Coffee Act No. 9 of 2001 to provide a second window for direct coffee sale and

marketing, establishment of Coffee Development Fund to finance the industry, and

restructuring the key industry institutions for efficient and effective service delivery.

Cotton Policy and repeal of Cotton Industry Act Chapter 335 aimed at reviving the

cotton industry through policy interventions that address production, processing and

marketing.

National Food and Nutrition Policy focusing on food availability, food access, food

utilization and stability of access.


The Constitution of Kenya (2010) has guiding principles on land hence heralding a

guiding constitutional philosophy. Chapter 5 on Land and Environment expounds on

the principles on land policy, classification of land and legislation on land. While this

is yet to be legislated upon Kenya might set new examples on land tenure for the

region and the continent. The Constitution states the obligations of the State in

respect to the environment, as well as enforcement of environmental rights.

The Forests Act (1957), was revised 1968 (Sessional Paper No.1).This policy focused

on conservation and management of forest resources on Government land. One of

its main weaknesses was that it did not adequately recognize or reflect the role,

rights or responsibilities of communities adjacent to or living in the forests (Mathu,

2007, reported by Ngendo, 2011).

Others: Kenya has over 77 statutes that touch on forestry and key among these are

the Draft Land/land Use Policy, Environmental Management and Coordination Act

(1999), the Water Policy/Water Act of 1999, the Wildlife (Conservation and

Management) Act (Cap 376) and the Agriculture/National Food Policy (Sessional

Paper No.2 of 1994)

In Kenya various organizations and institutions have been involved in conservation

agriculture advancement. These include:

Development partners - WVK, KENDAT, CARE, SACEDP, Aga Khan CRSP, TIST

Research organizations – KARI, KEFRI, ICRAF, CIMMYT, CETRAD, ICRISAT

Academic Institutions – University of Nairobi, Egerton University, Kenya Methodist

University, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Baraka College

Service oriented – Brazafric Ltd, Lotech Ventures Ltd, KFS, Femo Works Ltd, Infonet-

Biovision

International Organs – IFAD, WB, JICA, IRISH AID, AU, UNDP, DFID, GTZ, EU, DANIDA,

SIDA, AGRA, NORAD

3.3.1 Typical Challenges facing CAWT

Challenges in inculcating CA practices are many as all participating stakeholders would

highlight, given a chance. For example, at the 2010 COMESA-GoK meeting the Kenya Forest

Service expressed the following challenges regarding dissemination of on-farm CAWT:

• Long gestation period of tree farming discourages farmers from prioritizing it as a viable enterprise.

• The high cost of production has limited accessibility to available technologies. • Inadequate awareness of the potential of tree planting in the success of conservation

agriculture. • Lack of credit facilities for investment in tree farming.


• Weak research extension farmer linkages in tree farming • Lack of market information for tree related and farm forestry products

At the time, KFS was seeking partnership with others to develop and promote a holistic approach to conservation agriculture. They envisioned that the growing partnerships would entail piloting and later up-scaling:

Figure 4: CA Implementation Structure for Kenya proposed by the COMESA and Government

of Kenya meeting of 2010.

• Intensifying awareness creation at community on the potential of tree farming for

environmental conservation and livelihood improvement.


• Social capital development for participation in conservation agriculture through

formation of groups at the community level for the purposes of agroforestry

promotion.

• Support communities to produce appropriate tree seedlings.

• Building the human capital for agroforestry development via establishment of

demonstration plots for learning purposes and staff for addressing emerging issues in

the forestry sector.

• Strengthening of research and extension farmer linkages for enhanced technology

packaging and dissemination.

• Development of an up scaling strategy and mechanism for sharing lessons learnt

across the country and beyond.

• Generation and dissemination of farm forestry marketing information for firming

farm forestry value chains and markets.

At the COMESA/ GoK meeting of 2010 the gathering came up with the National CA

implementation structure shown on Figure 4 below.

As a way forward the Kisumu meeting concluded that the following measures ought to be

taken by the government and its people:

Mainstream the National Agriculture Policies to include CA principles and practices.

Carry out CA awareness campaigns all over the country.

Up scaling current CA practices to include minimum tillage or no till processes.

The government and its partners should encourage the manufacture and sell of CA equipment. This would require up scaling Jua Kali (SME) artisans and technology institutions.

Expanded irrigation and green house practices to be promoted in semi-arid areas.

Infrastructure and market to be provided for farm produce.

Capacity building efforts geared towards encouraging responsible management farm practices.

Farmers be encouraged to adopt other forms of farming such as bee keeping and

poultry.

On matters of CA needing policy interventions and framework the meeting listed the

following:

Extension services - Integrated extension services dissemination

Land Use - Policy on conversion of arable land to other land uses - Establishment of urban/rural settlements - Minimum agricultural land holding

Transition and Adaptation of CA


- Policy on the transition process from conventional agriculture to Conservation Agriculture

Mainstreaming CA - Policy to ensure CA is mainstreamed in the education curriculum - Capacity Building - Policy on Capacity building of extension staff, farmers and all other stakeholders

Marketing - Policy addressing Processing, post-harvest handling and value addition issues - Coordination - A policy that provides for a central body mandated to coordinate CA activities to

ensure that the activities are properly articulated and implemented. The body to ensure quality assurance standards and monitoring

Collaboration - A policy to create synergy to enhance Public Private Partnership (PPP)

CA Equipments - A policy to ensure availability, affordability and acceptable quality of CA equipments

Credit facility and Insurance - Policy to ensure accessible credit facilities on inputs - Creation of CA funds to subsidise farmers - Carbon credits to CA farmers. - Insurance cover for farm produce/ farming

Infrastructure - A policy to ensure proper Communication, transport (road networks) and industrial

development infrastructure

Post harvest Management / Conservation - Policy to address all post-harvest management and conservation issues e.g. Storage,

marketing, land management after harvesting etc.

Implementation - A policy that clearly defines and distinguishes the coordinators from Implementers

(each to perform their mandated work)

3.3.2 Achievements and way forward

Since the COMESA and GoK meeting of 2010 where the above CA Implementation

Framework was outlined, there has evolved a National Task Force for CA with Trees. The NTF

is led by the Agricultural Engineering Services Division of the Ministry of Agriculture. The NTF

is anchored within ASCU. Next steps for the task force are to review the Implementation

Framework, to capture emerging Stakeholder concerns (Courtesy: ICRAF and ACT/SIDA

project).

Membership of the Task Force is composed of but not limited to:

Government Ministries and Organizations (KARI, KEFRI, KFS)


ICRAF

NGOs

Farmer organizations (KENFAP, KENANA)

Farm equipment and inputs manufacturers and dealers (FEMOWORKS)

CAWT Investment Framework

Advances made are such as:

- A team constituted by the task force to polish the CA Investment Framework and the

Agriculture (Farm Forestry) Rules, 2009, which requires farmers to retain 10% tree

cover on their farms.

- Developing implementation strategies that facilitate fundraising aimed at at

Investment Plan that moves CAWT from Pilots and Boardrooms to the farmer’s farms.

- Consolidation of The task Force membership to merge efforts to address emerging and

broader issues such as Climate-Smart Agriculture, Land regeneration etc.

The Draft Investment Framework is composed of:

1. Project Management Unit

2. Multi-level, CAWT TF driven, capacity building,

3. Public Private Partnerships

4. Climate Smart Agriculture practices

5. Others

3.3.3 Kenya Agriculture & Livestock Sector (Drastic) Realignment:

In line with the new constitution and the move to a decentralised (Federal) 47 County

Government structure Kenya is in the process of creating an all-encompassing Agricultural

Livestock and Food Authority (ALFA) which will take over the functions of dozens of state

corporations dealing in commodities as well as services. This is bound to bring drastic change

in Kenya’s agriculture-led development.

The 131 statutes that govern the Kenyan agricultural sector have been consolidated into four

Bills: Agriculture, Livestock and Food Authority Bill 2012; Fisheries and Livestock Bill 2012;

Crops Bill 2012; The Agricultural Research Bill 2012. The Bill will repeal 20 statutes including

the Agriculture Act, Grass Fires Act, Tea Act, Coffee Act, Sugar Act, Sisal Industry Act, Cotton

Act, Coconut Act, and the Pyrethrum Act.

Parastatals whose functions will be taken over by ALFA include the Coconut Development

Authority, Kenya Sugar Board, Tea Board of Kenya, Coffee Board of Kenya, Horticultural


Crops Development Authority, Pyrethrum Board of Kenya, Cotton Development Authority,

Plant Health Inspectorate, Kenya Dairy Board, and the Pests Control Products Board. These

parastatals will be replaced by independent directorates. The Authority may establish

directorates for each crop or produce as may be necessary to enable the carrying out of any

specialised activities with respect to the promotion or management of the crop or produce.

The current Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU) will become the Administrative

Secretariat of ALFA.

The Kenya Agricultural Research Organisation will take over the functions of all research

institutions - KARI, KEFRI, KETRI, Coffee Research Foundation, Tea Research Foundation,

Kenya Sugar Research Foundation. It will be headed by the Director-General. Each county

government shall, within its area of jurisdiction be responsible for agricultural matters. The

national government shall be responsible for agricultural policy and for assisting the county

governments on agricultural matters.

3.4 Ghana CAWT Policy and Institutional Partners

Ministry of Food & Agriculture (MOFA)

Regional Agricultural Development Units (RADU)

District Agricultural Development Units (DADU)

Policy, Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Directorate (PPMED)

Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services

Animal Production Directorate

Directorate of Crop Services (DCS)

Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD)

Veterinary Services Directorate

Women in Agricultural Directorate (WIAD)

SUBVENTED ORGANIZATIONS & STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES (SOEs)

National Food Butter Stock Company (NAFCO)

Ghana Irrigation Development Authority

Other Ministries and Institutions involved (MLNR, MEST, MTI, MOFEP, MOI, MOE, etc.)

Public Sector (Lands Commission, Forestry Commission, CSIR, EPA, GIPC, etc.)

Civil Society Organizations (ADRA, CARE, CI, CCFI, etc.)


3.4.1 Strategic CAWT Organizational Effort:

The National Conservation Agriculture Team was formed in 2005 composed of representatives from MOFA, research, universities, international organizations, projects and companies. However this body has been dormant for several years now. The team was charged with coordinating conservation agriculture programmes and facilitating collaboration and building synergy among conservation agriculture practitioners. Individual projects provided funds for their representatives to attend meetings (Boahen et al., 2007).

3.4.2 Other CAWT Programmatic Efforts:

1. The Savanna Resources Management Project (SRMP) was a national programme that focused on developing sustainable land-management systems.

2. The Land Water Management Project started in 1995 as a component of the nationwide Ghana Environmental Resources Management Project. The project aimed at introducing and promoting improved land management practices within farming communities with emphasis on building MOFA capacity to provide adequate extension services on land management. Technologies promoted during the project included soil and water management techniques such as use of cover crops, minimum tillage and animal traction.

3. The No-Till programme was jointly implemented by Sasakawa Global 2000 and Monsanto. It focused on promoting direct planting and using plant mulch that was derived mainly by using herbicides. The objective was to improve productivity by improving soil organic matter and reducing weed loads. The project also worked with input suppliers and credit agencies to address input problems that were seen as a precondition for successful implementation of the minimum tillage programme.

4. The Cover Crop Programme was a collaborative effort between the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the CSIR-Crops Research Institute. Leguminous cover crops such as Mucuna, Pueraria and Canavalia were screened on-station and on-farm. The Land and Water Management Project and the Sedentary Farming System Project made use of the findings of this programme in their extension work. Promoted by the Sedentary Farming System Project, which operated in the Brong Ahafo Region, conservation agriculture consisted of improving the management of soil organic matter, rotating crops, using cover crops to improve short fallow systems, and using animal manure.

5. The Forest Resources Creation Project (FRCP) funded by the European Commission was in response to the increased awareness of the need for drastic change in the way in which natural resources were used. The project promoted sustainable use of natural resources and forests through capacity building, equity, gender sensitivity, participation and information sharing. The project aimed at introducing tree components into existing farming systems. The FRCP promoted agroforestry and soil fertility technologies that assisted farmers to improve their soil quality.


Chapter 4:

Low Hanging Fruit CAWT Support Institutions and Programmes at REC, CAADP

and AU Levels:

4.1 National into Regional Platforms for Up-scaling CAWT The project sponsoring this study and write-up concentrated efforts in the four countries of Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. CAWT has been advanced in many other African countries with the same or similar challenges of up-scaling. Each nation, be it Morocco, Ethiopia or South Africa has its own approach, applicable to its livelihoods, hence the level of CA adoption. There are three bodies that can lay claim to pioneering the advancement of CA in Africa. They are all close working partners. They are ACT, the FAO of the United Nations and ICRAF. These two organizations and their regional, national and local partners in national research institutions, NGOs and even the private sector have been and must be deeply involved in scaling up CAWT to the next and sustenance levels. In more recent times, the efforts of all these and other partners in CA in the region were boosted by the formation of the technical wing of AU in the name of NEPAD. NEPAD went on to set-up the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), among others. CAADP, a clearly written development framework went on to demand that African countries place Agriculture where it deserves, by dedicating more, in terms of economic growth focus and even national budgetary resource allocations. African nations are supposed to work through their own Regional Economic Communities and by developing national specific CAADP Compacts that will drive their development mechanisms. This arrangement is captured in Figure 5. 4.1.1 The Africa Conservation Tillage Network The Africa Conservation Tillage (ACT) Network is now well established as the body to propel the advancement of CA in Africa. Although ACT is yet to make a dent on the work involved of coordinating an extremely complex country, she works closely with regional Governments, research institutions, NGOs, farmer organizations or groups, individual farmers and various business operators. ACT has taken the leading role in various CA inculcating activities. ACT in partnership with others helped CA gain significant but limited mileage by hosting of the 3rd World Congress in Nairobi (Kenya) in 2005. ACT has grown in leaps since that time, leading and participating in various projects and CA advancement initiatives. ACT has described herself as the One-Stop Information Facility for CA in Africa. ACT has offices in Kenya, Ouagadougou, Tanzania and


Zimbabwe. She works with various partners across all levels, some of which are national Governments and NGOs such as CRS, SOS Sahel, IFDC, Agrinovia, Réseau MARP. ACT has defined her operational themes as follows:

Awareness creation and advocacy, through campaigns, lobbies, exhibitions etc.

Capacity building: training beneficiaries at all levels, influencing formal school curricula, demonstrations, exchange visits, e-forums etc.

Networking & Partnership building: knowledge and information dissemination, building value chain linkages; linking farmers to private enterprise support etc.

Research and development: including climate change mitigation efforts.

Special programmes touching on environment; livelihoods of vulnerable groups (women and youth) including those suffering under HIV/AIDS.

4.1.2 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) In realization of a need for a regional stakeholder coordination body that would help form and reform national task force efforts the FAO office for Southern Africa formed the Conservation Agriculture Regional Working Group (CARWG). This was founded by the Expert Consultation Group that sat in Harare in 2007. Today CARWG has an Executive Committee with a Chair and a Secretariat. The organization operates under several Thematic Groups, which develop annual work plans, namely:

Research and M&E led by FAO

Capacity Building, Extension, Knowledge and Publicity led by ACT

Inputs and Equipments led by FAO and

Policy Development and Advocacy led by FANRPAN CARWG reports her major achievements as:

Annual meetings

CA case studies

M&E Toolkit development and training

3 Policy maker study tours

Technical Briefs

Training of Trainers

Regional Symposium 2011

Funds for NCATF programmes CARWG has made greatest in-roads in her area of mandate (the SADC region) as observable in South Africa where some 300,000 ha has been put under CA, mostly by large scale farmers in No-till Clubs, Zambia where some 400,000 smallholder farmers are practicing CA led by the efforts of a Farmers Union, Zimbabwe where a 2012 survey has reported some 372,000 CA farmers. In Zimbabwe this number has been achieved through emergency support which will need continued support for subsidized inputs if sustained growth will be achieved (Ager, 2012).


Ager (2012) reported a tripartite climate change initiative (between SADC, COMESA and EAC) and associated projects that are under formation. These efforts will feature:

1. Adoption of African Climate Solutions hence investment frameworks to access climate adaptation funds,

2. Enhanced adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), 3. Strengthened research & training capacity, 4. Climate vulnerability assessments to help understand applicable mitigation solutions. 5. Establishment of a regional facility to invest in CSA

Indeed plans in this regard are at an advanced stage, namely a 5 year-programme on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Eastern & Southern Africa:

Involving 27 countries of COMESA, EAC, SADC

To be implemented by RECs, Governments and partners including FAO, ACT and others,

Participating donors including EU (€4 m), Norway (US$20m) and DfID Investment Facility (£38m)

Ager (2012) reported that FAO sees her role in this movement as one to support and facilitate national CA task forces and CA regional working groups, including research programmes to:

Develop Investment Frameworks

Conduct 14 minor pilot Investment Projects

Figure 5: Long-term maize yield without fertilizer in Gliricidia Farming System

(Source: Garrity et al. 2011)


4.1.3 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Recently, the CA and agroforestry research and development communities have mutually recognized the value of integrating fertilizer trees and shrubs into CAWT systems. The gains are (see Figures 5 and 6) in the dramatic enhancement of both fodder production and soil fertility (FAO 2010; FAO 2011). Practical systems for intercropping fertilizer trees in maize farming have been developed and are being extended to hundreds of thousands of farmers in Malawi and Zambia (Ajayi et al 2011). The portfolio of options includes intercropping maize with Gliricidia sepium, Tephrosia candida or pigeon peas, or using trees such as Sesbania sesban as an improved fallow. One particularly promising system is the integration of the Faidherbia albida into crop fields. Faidherbia is an indigenous African acacia that is widespread on millions of farmer’s fields throughout the eastern, western, and southern regions of the continent (Garrity 2011). It is highly compatible with food crops because it is dormant during the rainy season. It exhibits minimal competition, while enhancing yields and soil health (Barnes and Fagg 2003). Several tons of additional biomass can be generated annually per hectare to accelerate soil fertility replenishment, provide additional livestock fodder. Numerous publications have recorded increases in maize grain yield when it grown in association with Faidherbia, ranging from 6% to more than 200% (Barnes and Fagg 2003), depending on the age and density of trees, agronomic practices used, and the weather conditions. ___________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Figure 6: Results of Faidherbia7 trial in Zambia (Source: Garrity et al. 2011)

7 Faidherbia is an Acacia Tree commonly found in Africa. The “Fertilizer Tree” whose potential is yet to be

exploited in the continent drops its leaves in the we-season and these bloom in the dry season. Faidherbia can

therefore be grown in-the-farm and not outside or on the boundaries, together with the crop, pausing no nutrient

competition and indeed providing much nutrition to the soil and the animals that it could be fed to.


4.2 African Union and Regional Economic Communities Architecture In a continent with highly variable topography, soils and rainfall (see Appendix 2), CAWT practices are bound to be highly variable even within distances of a few kilometres, not to mention between neighbouring districts, countries and regions. Africa is endowed with rich but highly variable cultural, natural resource and other national and regional differences. This means there are huge differences in natural, human, social, physical and financial capital. When an outsider looks at Africa, it is most likely from the expectant eyes of deeply engraved primitivity, poverty, drought and disease. It is most likely from expectations of a needy continent where every assistance is needed, in a development arena curtailed by poor and corrupt governance that appears tailor-made for the upper class. The African Union has made good attempts at uniting Africa socially, economically and even politically, with significant success. This processes some of them originating from efforts of particular countries and their neighbours, have resulted in the formation of Regional Economic Communities (RECs) (see Appendix 1) namely: COMESA, SADC, ECOWAS, EAC, IGAD, Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD)and The Arab Maghreb Union (UMA) (See details in Appendix 1). The RECs remain under continuous evolution as mostly political and disaster driven changes get imposed.

Figure 7: Regional Economic Communities Agricultural Advancement Architecture

Under the Leadership of the African Union


Figure 7 shows the architecture of the RECs and their role in development. In the case shown, CAADP is featuring heavily. CAADP is the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme of the New Partnerships for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). NEPAD and its structure is captured in detail in Appendix 1. What is important to note here is that: The NEPAD Secretariat is not responsible for the implementation of development programs itself, but works with the African Regional Economic Communities -- the building blocks of the African Union. The role of the NEPAD Secretariat is one of coordination and resource mobilization. Many individual African states have also established national NEPAD structures responsible for liaison with the continental initiatives on economic reform and development programs. Key NEPAD Partners are:

UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

African Development Bank

Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)

Investment Climate Facility (ICF)

African Capacity Building Foundation

Office of the UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser on Africa

IDC (The Industrial Development Corporation) - Sponsor of NEPAD

4.3 RECs and CAADP Entry Points to the Regional Support for Up-scaling

Regional CAWT Initiatives:

4.3.1 Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) In essence, CAADP is about bringing together diverse key players - at the continental, regional and national levels - to improve co-ordination, to share knowledge, successes and failures, to encourage one another, and to promote joint and separate efforts to achieve the CAADP goals. CAADP aims to help African countries reach a higher path of economic growth through agriculture-led development. CAADP through NEPAD, addresses policy and capacity issues across the entire agricultural sector and African continent. CAADP is entirely Africa-led and Africa-owned and represents African leaders' collective vision for agriculture in Africa. This ambitious and comprehensive vision for agricultural reform in Africa aims for an average annual growth rate of 6 percent in agriculture by 2015. CAADP website says that by 2015, African leaders hope to see:

Dynamic agricultural markets within countries and between regions in Africa;


Farmers taking part in the market economy and enjoying good access to markets so that Africa, capitalizing on its comparative and competitive advantages, becomes a net exporter of agricultural products;

A more equitable distribution of wealth for rural populations - in terms of higher real incomes and relative wealth. Rural populations will have more equitable access to land, physical and financial resources, and knowledge, information and technology for sustainable development;

Africa as a strategic player in agricultural science and technology, meeting the growing needs and demands of African agriculture; and

Environmentally sound agricultural production and a culture of sustainable management of natural resources as a result of better knowledge, more information and the application of technology.

CAADP operates on a Theory of Change that is captured under 4 Pillars of intervention:

Pillar 1 - Extending the area under sustainable land management.

Pillar 2 - Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access.

Pillar 3 - Increasing food supply and reducing hunger.

Pillar 4 - Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption. CAADP's goal is to eliminate hunger and reduce poverty through agriculture. To do this, African governments have agreed to increase public investment in agriculture by a minimum of 10 per cent of their national budgets and to raise agricultural productivity by at least 6 per cent. CAADP was formed in 2003. Since then development partners have worked together closely to support its processes and the development of the CAADP Pillars. This collaborative effort has resulted in a significant harmonization of donor support for CAADP activities and investment programmes. NEPAD, the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and the African Union (AU), together with a number of donors and African governments, worked to further harmonize support. The result is the CAADP Multi-donor Trust Fund, hosted at the World Bank. This is meant to channel financial support to CAADP processes and investments. CAADP describes the CAADP Multi-donor Trust Fund as a flexible yet systematic, efficient and reliable way to:

Harmonize priorities.

Allow economies of scale.

Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of financial resources.

Target specific gaps in financing, capacity and technology.

Facilitate partnerships and coalition building among African institutions, partners and donors.


Complement existing resources mobilized around CAADP Pillars and other thematic priorities.

4.4 Grounding CAADP Pillar 1: Towards Africa-wide Sustainable Land and Water Management

CAADP‘s Pillar 1 aims to extend the area under sustainable land and water management (SLWM) throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. It is one of four continent-wide entry points, or pillars, that CAADP has identified for investment and action in pursuing increased and sustainable productivity in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and livestock management. Founded on the recognition of the importance of SLM and water strategies in the efforts of improving agricultural productivity throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, this agenda brings together four key elements of the CAADP process:

• Sustainable land management • Agricultural water development • Land policy and administration • CAADP roundtable processes

The framework was prepared by a joint NEPAD, University of Zambia (UNZA) and Permanent Inter-state Committee for Drought Control in Sahel (CILSS) committee. It built upon two earlier undertakings, namely

(a) the work commissioned by the TerrAfrica Partnership under the leadership of the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and

(b) a review led by the African Development Bank, FAO, IFAD, IWMI and World Bank (2007) under the theme ―Investing in Agriculture Water for Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa.‖

A CAADP Pillar I Expert Reference Group provided valuable review input in ensuring that this framework document was tailored to African needs. The finalised framework aimed to promote partnerships between international, regional, national, district and community level stakeholders with the long-term goal of restoring, sustaining and enhancing the productive and protective functions of Africa‘s land and water resources. The two initiatives led to 2 reference documents i) The TerrAfrica8 Sustainable Land Management Vision Paper for Africa and the

corresponding Country Support Tool and

8 The TerrAfrica partnership is a US$4 billion, 12-year campaign supported by the African Union, World

Bank, United Nations, European Commission, and regional sub-Saharan African governments. It is aimed at

fighting current, and preventing future desertification and other land degradation in Africa through sustainable

land management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_degradation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_management


ii) The paper on Investment in Agricultural Water for Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa – complete with the strategic vision for scaling up SLWM in Africa, the practical tools and modalities for pursuing the vision at the national level.

The CAADP Pillar 1 implementation Framework defines the scope and assigned specific roles to different partners. The Framework was defined by the CAADP Pillar 1 Implementation Team composed of the NEPAD Secretariat and a lean Steering Team comprised of representatives from the RECs and the two lead institutions9, to have the following scope guidelines: The Framework was to be:

Practical enough as to guide development initiatives of countries around a common set of principles and values, an African collective vision with clear and common targets (at least 6% growth in Agriculture productivity; 10% public expenditure budget into agriculture).

Not a set of instructions or do-it-yourself manual, but a checklist to help within a given context to align and embrace the NEPAD/CAADP principles, values and set targets, in terms of:

- investment programmes that exploit best technical and other practice, on issues most able to make the desired impact on the set development agenda.

- investment programmes that are feasible and viable interventions with potential for the best use of the funds hence the potential for the highest returns on investment.

- provision for desired institutional reforms and capacity building including the building of coalitions and partnerships that entrench values of transparency, accountability and shared commitment to the growth agenda.

- provision for desired policy assessment, transformation and on-going revision. - pursuit of integrated and holistic approaches including mutual inter-sectoral

collaboration, entrepreneurship development, greater market access and private sector engagement.

- facilitation of greater in-country alignment and harmonisation of development efforts and support to links with regional development agenda.

- facilitation of peer learning and review including support to strategic thinking and analysis with information and knowledge mainstreamed as key developmental factors.

Clear on value-addition to country efforts that would be pursuing the CAADP agenda ensuring that the ultimate outcomes are enhancing:

- sustainable productivity, - sustainable institutional arrangements, - capacities and competencies,

9 COMESA, IGAD, ECOWAS, SADC, CILSS and University of Zambia


- policy structures, - delivery mechanisms - shared vision and - shared responsibility among all stakeholders including farmers and

communities. The CAADP Pillar 1 framework was also expected to embrace and buy-into the work which was to be pursued under the leadership of the AUC and EAC on land administration and land policy. The Pillar 1 Implementation Strategy was defined to operate under specific criteria and roles and responsibilities of the 3 core institutions as follows: 1) Role of the Lead Institutions: The role of the lead institutions was seen as fundamentally technical and in three parts:

- take leadership in organising and managing the expert, peer-review process, validation workshops including the incorporation of comments, feedback and inputs into the Framework document.

- ensure that as the framework is finalised and in liaison with NEPAD and RECs and that countries begin to draw upon the tools and guidance provided in the framework.

- provide expert reviews and technical backstopping calling on other expert institutions to backstop actions by countries.

2) Role of the Regional Economic Communities: The role of the Regional Economic Communities was seen as several fold:

- to ensure that the developed Frameworks were responding appropriately to country and regional needs assimilating lessons learned from the initial experiences of the roundtable processes.

- to articulate the Framework to country level through political and technical dialogue around the roundtable processes.

3) NEPAD’s Role: NEPAD’s comparative advantage was seen to be with respect to co-ordinating and congregating the different levels of stakeholders (continental and international) with an interest in sustainable land and water management and CAADP guidelines. Some of the specific roles of NEPAD Secretariat are listed as ensuring:

• lead institutions have adequate resources and capacities to facilitate the necessary technical reviews;

• the framework is well linked with the i) other pillars and ii) country roundtable processes;

• the framework responds to the needs of the RECs and country partners; • the framework presents a balanced continental vision and strategy;


• the framework is delivered in a timely fashion and is made available to the RECs and countries as they move ahead with the roundtable process;

• donors and other stakeholders at the international and continental level are mobilised in support of the framework.

4.5 CAWT Growth through RECs, led by CAADP & her National Compacts:

From the above exposure and understanding of the RECs, and the CAADP structure, it is clear that the “Lowest Hanging Fruit” for CAWT advancement nationally and regionally is most likely to be “picked” here. The most efficient paths in this route are likely to be along the following grounding steps. Drivers of the buses involved will need to be turned on CAWT Champions and Shakers, loaded with capacity to sacrifice for future generations, belief and undeterred sense of mission:

Cleverly and inclusively composed National Task Forces (NTFs) develop national CAWT advancement programmes write-ups guided by clear Theory of Change.

NTFs ensure that programmes theiy build fit squarely into their national situation and agenda, tapping into resource, partnership and other opportunities with the sole aim of building entrepreneurs out of smallholder and other farmers, among others working in defined and prioritized value-chains.

NTFs develop programmes that bring together all parties in the natural resources management, agriculture, food, energy and water and other relevant sectors or programmes,

NTFs develop Investment Plans under the themes easily accommodated under NEPADs 4 Pillars (Value Chain Approach) but climaxing on Pillar 1 (Sustainable Land and Water Management)10 and building synergies and strong partners from leaders of the other pillars.

National CAWT task forces generate own Core Funds nationally from Government Ministries, Agencies and even from the Private Sector.

NTFs tap into additional programmatic, material and financial support nationally, directly from development partners or through RECs and CAADP via well documented National Compacts (including Stocktaking, Compact and/or CAADP level Investment Plans, depending on progress made by a particular nation).

NTFs implement structured CAWT advancement programmes that are stakeholder and beneficiary targeted, hence absolutely clear on scope, roles, deliverables to meet agreed outputs against established goals, hence M&E and regulatory impact guided frameworks.

10

Countries that may be struggling with this are encouraged to look at the plans summarized under the Case of

Zambia in this Report.


4.6 CAADP Opportunities: The countries that have already signed National Stocktaking, Compacts or Investment Plans against the established CAADP guidelines and tools11 are listed in Appendix 1. Another special opportunity available under CAADP for CAWT to explore is the NEPAD-CAADP climate adaptation strategy (CAADP-CAS). For this, a multi-partner development and implementation strategy has been documented under an Agriculture-Land Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Framework. The Framework is built on the premise that Africa has a special climate change challenge, compared to the rest of the world regions. For Africa climate variability is directly affecting the people’s basic and core livelihood parameters, namely food security, incomes and even health. For this, a programme with multiple objectives encompassing enhanced agriculture productivity, environmental resilience as well as bio-diversity protection must be and is under developed. The approach therefore has room for CAWT under the CAADP agenda which is aimed at development of systemic human and organizational capacity for Africa to not only respond but also fully participate as a key player in global dialogue and initiatives tackling climate change. NEPAD’s CAADP-CAS reiterates the need for this strategy to “connect the pieces” in the sense of stimulating connection between various initiatives towards a common African vision bringing together:

• Information support, knowledge management and learning • Innovations and technology development for local adaptation, • Financial support and • Policy formulation

Figure 8: AUC-NEPAD coordinated multi-partner initiative: CAADP Agricultural-based Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Framework (From CAADP Pillar 1)

11

The CAADP website www.CAADP.net/library.php has a wealth of resources to help nations develop an

understanding of their development situations and develop CAADP compacts and other plans.

CAADP Agricultural based Climate

Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Framework

Wealth creation and economic growth

Sustainable Land and

Water Management

Agric. Productivity and Food Security

Climate change/

environmental resilience

http://www.caadp.net/library.php


Drivers who are also country-level owners of the initiatives are seen to be National SLM task forces operating under well-grounded national SLM platforms that take cognizance of the multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary nature of sustained agriculture productivity under resilient environment. Within the primary development work, the Agriculture-Land Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Framework brings together around the CAADP thrust three core initiatives and processes, namely:

- the TerrAfrica supported development of the CAADP Pillar 1 framework, led by the Pillar Institutions, and related Soil Fertility Initiatives (SFI) investment frameworks which were already underway.

- COMESA – SADC –EAC joint initiative to develop and support regional sustainable land management and agriculture water practices.

- broader and on-going analytical works within the TerrAfrica partnership on SLM and Climate change and food security linkages12.

The above 4-pronged initiative was developed in 2009 and its actualization has been followed by various AU and other level Position Papers, land and livestock conferences and roundtable workshops with two objectives:

1) Contribute to dialogue on developing Africa’s perspectives, technical and analytical understanding and negotiation positions for the UNCCF COP Copenhagen conference of December 2009 where a change agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol (expiring 2012) was foreseen.

2. Develop and manage operations of the NEPAD-CAADP Agriculture Climate Change

Adaptation Framework to: a) Development and design country and regional investment programmes, b) Mobilize resources where countries align their investments to regional and

national political priority areas. c) Information exchange and monitoring and evaluation at continental level

To aid the process a governance arrangement for the Management of the NEPAD-CAADP Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Framework was established devolving the responsibility centred around the NEPAD Secretariat to operate under a special decision making Management Team with technical back-stopping from TerrAfrica SLM-Climate Change SAG. The Team was to be chaired by NEPAD-CAADP Head with key members sought from:

- NEPAD Secretariat – (CAADP and EAP also representing the TerrAfrica Partnership) - Representatives of the Regional Economic Communities (initially COMESA, SADC and

ECOWAS) - AUC – DREA (Environment)

12

This included development of position papers for the April 2009 Joint Ministers of Agriculture, Land and

Livestock Conference and the July 2009 AU Summit sub-theme - Climate Change: Opportunities for Enhanced

Investments and Growth of African Agriculture.


- CAADP Pillar 1 Lead Institutions (UNZA and CILSS) - African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT) - ICRAF - Farmer Organizations - Private Sector /CSO (AGRA) - Two observer positions for Development Partners

Figure 9: The CAADP Country Process: A robust country process will lead to a strong, accessible and supportive regional process. (Source: CAADP Pillar 1 Team)

Team TORS were outlined as to:

- coherently reflect the broader NEPAD-CAADP vision for Africa’s own capacity to addressing climate change issues,

- develop policies and institutional arrangements within country and regional institutions,

- respect African responsibility, commitment and ownership, providing real incentives for sustainability,

- ensure the desired systemic reforms in policies and institutional arrangements


A special fund for the programme was envisaged. For example the NEPAD Secretariat has already established a Spanish Fund which was dispatching upto US$ 10million annually in support of women groups in various counties. At the just concluded Arusha CAWT (End of Project) Workshop (May 9th to 11th ), the presentation from NEPAD (CAADP Pillar1) showed an interesting slide depicting the CAADP Journey in the African Continent as well established (see the pictorial below). From the presentation it was intimated that that since 2009, the implementation of the NEPAD-CAADP Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Framework and its process Management Team were still in early days of formation and grounding under the continent-wide agenda. The intricacies of what is involved are captured in Figures 9 and 10. Several national level efforts like the formation of national task forces under the CAWT project (reported here) are gaining momentum and should be supported by NEPAD-RECs own initiatives, if their (NEPAD-RECs) own efforts are to bear fruit.

4.7 COMESA Opportunities: COMESA appears to see CAWT as best applied under the themes of Climate Change Mitigation. COMESA recognizes CAWT as encompassing climate resilient practices and technologies that have the potential to foster food security, foreign exchange earnings and employment creation. COMESA quickly links her efforts to the Africa Union (AU)’s Environmental Action Plan (EAP) around which common policies and strategies on sustainable utilization of natural resources are being and should be adopted by member countries. COMESA therefore expects her own member states to be committed to unifying regulations for preservation, utilization and management of natural resources to reduce depletion and avoid desertification. COMESA is involved in implementation of climate change interventions through agriculture, forestry and other forms of land use

Addressing the COMESA-GoK meeting in Kisumu in 2010, Chikakula Miti, the COMESA Climate Change Coordinator, noted the following opportunities that CAWT programmes in the region can and should exploit:

• Member States have agreed to take necessary measures to conserve and manage forests through joint promotion of common forestry practice; adoption of regulations for the preservation and management of all water catchments; joint utilization of forestry training and research facilities; and establishment of uniform regulations for the utilization of forestry resources in order to reduce the depletion of natural forests and avoid desertification in the COMESA region.


• Africa is currently faced with a number of persistent problems of rural poverty and environmental degradation and Climate Change is now topping the list of agriculture development challenges being faced by the Africa.

• Africa is particularly “highly vulnerable” to the impacts of climate change. COMESA is involved in the implementation of a Climate Change initiative that promotes interventions on the Agriculture, Forestry and Other land Use.

The COMESA Ministers of Agriculture meeting held in Vitoria Falls in Zimbabwe in 2009 made a declaration that 1.2 million farmers should have access to CA technology by 2012. Subsequently COMESA has worked with member states to:

Figure 10: Africa-wide CAADP Implementation System anchored upon national to regional CAADP Investment Programes and teams to fast-track policy-anchored processes. (Source: CAADP Pillar 1 Team)

• design the regional programmes for scaling up Climate Resilient Agriculture in the member States.

• The unified African Climate Change Position was launched in 2009-10 to form the basis for the Africa Group negotiating position at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen. The Programme was to support on-going activities to consolidate further the existing climate change consensus within Africa and to reinforce and extend Africa’s negotiating position within the UNFCCC framework. Other resources were to be used to mainstream climate change in the COMESA- EAC-


SADC region, develop the scientific knowledge base for climate change and explore additional aspects of climate change science.

• COMESA was and is yearning for rapid roll-out of tangible actions at the grassroots that would provide measurable progress and successes in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

• COMESA sought to achieve this through a second specific objective – by identifying target groups and developing investment frameworks that would address their adaptation needs. This meant that the scaling-up of existing applications of climate-resilient approaches to agriculture through conservation agriculture (CA) programmes in the region was important.

• To accomplish this, COMESA has a programme it hoped would leverage existing established positions in Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania and extend them rapidly to other member states where existing preparatory actions permitted further resource applications at the farm level.

• The Programme targeted 3 million small-scale farmers participating in CA systems and technologies by 2015.

• Associated actions that would be required to make the targets achievable would require more than the programme’s own resources and to cover:

- The development of agricultural marketing systems at all levels, - The further application of appropriate technologies such as small-scale irrigation, - Equipment applications, non-traditional food crops, integrated livestock

investments and improved land use planning. SADC appreciated the fact that it was essential to identify regional and in-country partners to work under consultative mechanisms that would synergize efforts and targets. SADC noted that the total value of resources needed to transform the COMESA-EAC-SADC region’s agricultural systems into a more climate-resilient format were enormous, and likely to exceed the 10% of the CAADP recommended national budget investments. Core funding would go towards continuous awareness and capacity building to deal with likely future climate change scenarios and their impacts on especially rural livelihoods. At the time of this meeting (June, 2010) the Norwegian Government has committed $50 million for the implementation of the planned programme in the member states. Other partners had indicated willingness to partner with COMESA.


Chapter 5: Conclusions of this Study

It is clear from this study that:

There is no shortage of policies and strategies by governments as exemplified in the policy analyses conducted in the cases of Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana.

There are adequate policies in the areas of sustainable land and water management (SLWM) and poverty eradication. Indeed all the national programmes of CAWT studied, showed that there are adequate and complementary plans that have been made, touching on protecting natural resources in general and mitigating environmental and land degradation in particular.

More recently nations have associated development agenda with growing the so-called “Green Economies” and the challenge of adequate response to the threat of desertification, depleting water resources, global warming among other labels, all referring to aspects or impacts under the realities of on-going and observable climate change.

5.1 Are there more questions than answers?

There are pertinent questions that need answers. The answers are likely to be different for different countries and regions, depending on the achievements made to date, what has worked and what hasn’t, on-going CAWT investment plans and foreseen benefits. Questions are such as the following: Despite good policy support and even foreseen funding of CAWT investment plans and with due regards to ongoing efforts, the questions that follow are pertinent:

Farmer engagement and participation as respectable equals:

Are smallholder farmers livelihood concerns being addressed in all their totality by considering all their capital dimensions for true resilience, be they:

~ natural (land, soil health and eco-environment), ~ human (culture, training and experience exposure), ~ social (group effort, structure and gaining voice), ~ physical (infrastructure, equipment and tools) and ~ financial (business farming, access to capital, fund safety nets) capitals?

Are smallholder farmers’ concerns being adequately listened to and addressed, as to help them pull out of the bottom of the pyramid, in order to have a more balanced development structure?


What new or innovative incentives will farmers receive in order to take the lead in a new way towards fast-tracked up-scaling and out-scaling visions and programmes attached to the development process?

Are policies and strategic plans backed by adequate practical and realizable farm-level agri-business incentives and interventions which make business sense for the youth, women and men, farmer entrepreneurs to take the wealth creation (relay) button and lead the race, at the level of the last (or is it first) development lap!?

Relevant and home-grown policy built on long-term plans:

Do countries have established platforms for driving inclusive change? Do these platforms adequately engage with those at the bottom of the pyramid?

Has the pertinent Theory of Change been adequately considered, debated and established, based upon inclusion of all stakeholders: Is the foreseen and sought change, well-grounded on the strengths of a country its people and its available or apparent natural resources?

Are policies and plans too many and disjointed, to be palatable by all parties involved? What is the glue between these policies? Is it the Principles of: - Stabilizing Population, - Creating Wealth, - Restoring the Earth’s Natural Support Systems or - Stabilizing Climate?

Can CAWT henceforth be seen from the principles of the bullets presented immediately above this one. How else are policy makers going to “think globally and act locally?” Indeed, in this regard, isn’t CAWT much more than: - Minimum Soil Disturbance, - Permanent Soil Cover and - Crop Rotations and Associations (including trees)

Are agricultural policies adequately merged with the all-important matters of protection and efficient use of soil, water, energy, education, finance, productivity, value-addition, trade and markets? Is this Value-Chain consideration and approach being applied? If so, which value-chains are likely to grow and support others and what is the hierarchy of their actualization?


National into regional structure and policy towards accelerated growth of CAWT at panacea level:

Are the recommendations of REC guided policy and strategic plan interventions, CAADP and arising CAADP compacts marrying adequately with solidly grounded national policy, plans and strategies?

Are national plans for the all-important agricultural sector (carrying 80% of Africa’s population) loaded with commitment to grow the smallest of farmers from an agribusiness perspective?

Are country’s providing for adequate own resources with clear guidelines on where and how development partners can chip in? Or are donors still sought to drive such a pertinent agenda?

Have clear and committed CAWT, SLWM and even Natural Resource Preservation Investment Plans well documented with the inputs of all stakeholders. Have such Plans been articulated to grow out of the institutional and practice structures of the past as to create a new and innovative beginning?

With the above questions answered by organized and representative stakeholder groups (see the representative platform proposed below and captured in Figure 11), CAWT will see Africa grow in ways never previously imagined. Indeed this Continent, the Last Frontier of observable high impacts that arise from relatively low external input agendas, needs CAWT value-chains to lead the way for Africa’s long awaited agribusiness led revolution. CAWT is the bus to generate the vibrant participation of the majority smallholder farmers to drive the mandatory agriculture-led development agenda.


The Proposed Regional Platform:

From National to Regional Partnership and Representation Structure

African Union (AU) Council of Agriculture,

Environment, Energy and Climate Change

Mitigation Ministers

NEPAD/CAADP Pillar 1 Representative Group in Matters

of Sustainable Land and Water Management-SLWM)

Common

Market for

Eastern and

Southern

Africa (COMES

A) RSC for

SLWM

Tanzania

(NTFs)

East African Community

(EAC)

Regional

Steering

Committee

(RSC) for

SLWM

Southern

Africa

Developme

nt

Community

(SADC)

RSC for

SLWM

Economic

Community

for West

African

States

(ECOWAS

) RSC for

SLWM

Economic Community

of Central

African

States

(ECCAS)

RSC for

SLWM

Community of Sahel-

Saharan

States

(CEN-

SAD) RSC

for SLWM

Arab

Maghreb

Union

(AMU/UM

A) RSC for

SLWM

Inter-

Governmental

Authority on

Development in

East Africa (IGAD) RSC

for SLWM

Kenya

(NTFs) Uganda

(NTFs) Rwanda

(NTFs) Burundi (NTFs) South Sudan

(NTFs)

{NEPAD-CAADP-SLWM-

Committee: One Member/REC

Committee(8 Total)}

Djibouti

Ethiopia

Kenya

Somalia

Sudan

Uganda

(NTFs

)

Burundi Comoros DRC

Djbouti Egypt Ethiopia

Eritrea Kenya Libya

Madagascar Malawi

Mauritius Rwanda

Seychelles S.Sudan Sudan

Swaziland Uganda Zambia

Zimbabwe Tanzania

Benin B.Faso C.Verde

C.d’Ivoire

Gambia Ghana Guinea G.Bissau

Liberia Mali

Niger Nigeria

Senegal S.Leone Togo

Cameroon

Central

African Republic Chad

Equatorial

Guinea Rep of

The Congo Gabon

(NTFs)

B.Faso Chad Libya Mali

Niger CAR Eritrea

Djibouti Gambia Senegal

Egypt Morocco Nigeria

Somalia Tunisia Benin

Togo C d’Ivoire g Bissau

Liberia Ghana S Leone

Comoros Guinea Kenya

Mauritania S Tome &

Principe

Algeria

Libya

Mauritania Morocco

Tunisia

Angola Botswana DRC Lesotho

Malawi Mauritius

Mozambique

Namibia Swaziland

Tanzania Zambia

Zimbabwe S. Africa

Seychelles

{REC-

Committee:

One NTF

Member

/Country

with a 15

Member

Ceiling}

National SLWM Task Force (NTF): Government Agents, NGOs, R&D (FARA, NARI or

CGIAR), CAADP Focal Points, UN Agencies (FAO, UNEP, UNIDO, etc.) IFAD, World Bank,

Farmers Unions or Federations, Fed of African Women Farmers, Civil Society Organizations,

Regional Development Projects (e.g. AGRA, RUFORUM, AFAS etc.) National CAWT Working

Groups, Private Sector, Finance Organizations Development Partners etc.

{National

Task

Forces:

Maximum

10

Members

/Country}

{AU- SLWM Continental Committee:

Four NEPAD-CAADP Members}

Typical

Members of

National

Task Force

(NTF)

Figure 11: Integrating CAWT in National and Regional Sustainable Land and Water Management Initiatives

and Economic Communities


5.2 The Regional Platform for fast-tracking CAWT initiatives from national to regional levels for sustained growth and impact:

Figure 11 captures the inputs of the proposals made at the recent CAWT End of Project Workshop in Arusha (May 9th to 11th, 2012). The Chart shows the architecture developed under the African Union and how delivery of development initiatives is meant to flow bottom-up as well as top-down, between AU council of Ministers (from Agricultural Development and SLWM) and NEPAD-CAADP, via the RECs and into the country programmes. The bottom-left end of the Chart shows an example from the East African Community, and how each of the RECs can be presented as inclusive of the member countries. It is clear from the background, various presentations and report items captured in this study that:

- Despite much progress, not enough achievements have been made in inculcating CA practice into the national and regional Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM) programmes or national policy interventions. Not enough since development of the NEPAD-CAADP climate change adaptation strategy (NEPAD-CAADP-CAS) framework and her well thought out regional thrusts and selection of its Special Management Team that took place in 2009.

- Meanwhile the growing and severe, observable impacts of climate change have continued to hit, growing new and urgent interest in the benefits of CAWT from communities, to nations, RECs, development partner agencies and other stakeholders, at all levels.

- There are new opportunities in re-building and re-focusing efforts via CAWT National Task Forces. The way to a robust and representative national to regional process of growing CAWT interventions is captured in the chart above and it is thought out structurally in the following representational steps:

The nature and size of a National into Regional Task Force for pushing CAWT agenda and activities From Farm to Policy Levels support is absolutely needed. The protocol is one, beginning with representative countries where CAWT practice is well established and including the CAWT countries that participated in this project namely Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana: 1) Establish a (no more than 10 Member SLWM-NTF) National CAWT Task-Force (NTF)

composed of members from (but not limited to) the following primary institutions which generally contribute SLWM efforts and resources in countries (see the Green bottom-box of Figure 11):

- Government Agencies, - NGOs, - Research and Development (FARA, ASARECA, NARI or CGIAR),


- CAADP Focal Points existing in various countries, - Uinte Nations Agencies (FAO, UNEP, UNIDO, etc.) - AfDB, IFAD and Word Bank, - Farmers Unions or Federations including Federation of African Women Farmers, - Civil Society Organizations and Regional Development Projects (e.g. AGRA, RUFORUM,

AFAS etc.) - National CAWT Working Groups, - Private Sector operators, - Finance Institutions and Development Partners etc.

The National Task Forces will generate own Stakeholder analysis, Representation and roles for fast-tracking efforts and impacts, Management Structure, TOR, Agenda, Strategic and Logical Frameworks, Investment Plans with clear and water-tight budgets, M&E contents and timelines etc. will be developed. 2) Each national task force will have a Chair or other member (as appropriate and efficient) to

represent their country at the development agendas and gatherings of the particular RECs (no more than 15 Member REC-SLWM-Committee). Different RECS may have differently founded, own development agenda. Where a country belongs to more than one REC a NTF may want to have different representatives at these. This will help NTF representatives specialise on the strategic plans and opportunities available at their roundtables, while building persistence and continuity. NTF member representation at the RECs should be limited to the number of member countries with a ceiling of 15 persons (whichever is lower).

3) The NEPAD-CAADP-Committee will be composed of 8 members, one from each of the 8 RECs

recognised by the African Union (AU) – (no more than 8 Member NEPAD-CAADP-SLWM Committee). These 8 members may want to define who represents the SLWM at various CAADP gatherings, including gatherings held under the other CAADP Pillars, namely: (Pillar 2): Infrastructure & Market Access, (Pillar 3): Food Supply & Hunger Response and (Pillar 4): Agricultural Research & Technology Dissemination. It is noteworthy that, if SLWM of which CAWT is part and parcel is implemented under the more promising Value-Chain approach, all pillars will be important for sustained CAWT advancement.

4) It is proposed that at the AU level, SLWM and CAWT agenda shall be propelled and represented by a (no more than 4 Member AU-SLWM- Continental Commitee). These four members will have been selected from the 8 member NEPAD level (NEPAD-CAADP-SLWM Committee.

It is believed that with this kind of hierarchical representation, efforts like those of variously discussed NEPAD-CAADP efforts and strategic plans for advancing SLWM and other pillar initiatives in the region, will be firmed, to grow in leaps and bounds. This is a very necessary structure to be promoted by NEPAD Pillar 1, to bring structure to a continent that can be complicated in terms of representation, persistence and focus for sustained growth.


Bibliography

Ager M, 2012. CA Coordination in Southern Africa. A paper presented at the Stakeholder Sharing Workshop

Elementaita, Naivasha Kenya, 30th – 31st May 2012 FAO Water Resources Management Office. [email protected]

Barnes R.D., Fagg C.W. (2003) Faidherbia albida. Monograph and Annotated Bibliography. Tropical Forestry Papers

No 41, Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford, UK. Clapperton J. 2012 Agroecosystem Health: Feed the soil so you can harvest the profits. A paper presented at the

Stakeholder Sharing Workshop Elementaita, Naivasha Kenya, 30th – 31st May 2012 [email protected] Cordeiro LAM, Galerani PR, Dossa D, Amaral DD, Dossa AA. 2011. Brazilian public policy to mitigate and adapt for

climate change and develop a low-carbon agriculture plan. Paper presented at the 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture and The 3rd Farming Systems Design Conference, 26-29 Sep 2011. Brisbane, Australia.

Dulla H. 2012: Conservation Agriculture with Trees (CAWT): Institutional frameworks for scaling up of CAWT

technologies: The case of Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. Paper presented at the CAWT End-of-Project Workshop. Arusha Tanzania. 9th – 11th May. 2012. ACT. Nairobi. Kenya.

FAO. 2010. An international consultation on integrated crop-livestock systems for development. Integrated Crop

Management Vol 13. Rome: FAO. 79 p. FAO 2011. Save and Grow. A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop

production. Rome: FAO. 103 p. Garrity D.P. 2011. Making Conservation Agriculture ever-green. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), P O Box

30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected]. Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. (2009) Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in

Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114: 23-34. GoK 2007. Kenya Vision 2030: Transforming National Development. Government of the Republic of Kenya. Herbohn J., N. Gregorio, S. Harrison, J. Vanclay and A. Bosch 2011 Enhancing tree seedling supply via economic and

policy changes in the Philippines nursery sector. Project Number ASEM/2006/091 ACIAR: Australian Government. ISBN 978 1 921738 73 9

ICARDA 2012. Conservation agriculture: opportunities for intensified farming and environmental conservation in

dry areas. A synthesis of research and trials with smallholder farmers in drylands systems; benefits and constraints to adoption. Farmer experiences and potential for uptake in Iraq, Syria, Morocco and Tunisia.

ICARDA 2012: Conservation agriculture: opportunities for intensified farming and environmental conservation in

dry areas. Research to Action 2, Farmer experiences and potential for uptake in Iraq, Syria, Morocco and Tunisia.International Centre for Research on Dryland Agriculture (ICARDA - 2012).

Jullien F, Julien P, Séguy L, Tivet F, Tran Quoc H, Lienhard P, Khamhung A, Rattanatray B, Panyasiri K, Chabanne A,

Lestrelin G 2011. Farmers group approach and stakeholder integration for the development of


Conservation Agriculture: the case of Lao PDR Paper presented at the 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture and The 3rd Farming Systems Design Conference, 26-29 Sep 2011. Brisbane, Australia.

Kassam A1, Friedrich T, Pretty J, Shaxson F (2011) Mainstreaming Conservation Agriculture: challenges to

adoption, institutions and policy. Paper presented at the 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture and The 3rd Farming Systems Design Conference, 26-29 Sep 2011. Brisbane, Australia.

Kassam, A., Theodor Friedrichb, Rolf Derpschc, Rabah Lahmard, Rachid Mrabete, Gottlieb Baschf, Emilio J. González-

Sánchezg, Rachid Serrajh 2012. Conservation agriculture in the dry Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Res. (2012), Elsevier Publishing.

Kaumbutho P and Kienzle J. eds 2007 Conservation agriculture as practiced in Kenya: Two case studies. African

Conservation Tillage Network, CIRAD and FAO Box 14733, Nairobi. 00800 Kenya. ISBN: 9966-7219-0-8 Milham N, Crean J, Kumar P, Singh R 2011. Policy impacts on land-use and agricultural practices in North-West

India Paper presented at the 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture and The 3rd Farming Systems Design Conference, 26-29 Sep 2011. Brisbane, Australia.

Mkomwa S. and Bwalya M. 2012. Conservation Agriculture with Trees (CAWT): For Food Security and Sustained

Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change: NEPAD-led PanAfrica Initiative Paper presented at the CAWT End-of-Project Workshop. Arusha Tanzania. 9th – 11th May. 2012. ACT. Nairobi. Kenya.

Mrabet, R., 2008. No-Tillage Systems for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture in Morocco. Institut National de la

Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Tangier,Morocco. NEPAD 2010a: The NEPAD-CAADP climate adaptation strategy (CAADP-CAS): The CAADP Agriculture CC Mitigation

and Adaptation Framework. Note on a Multi-Partner Strategy to develop and implement an Agriculture-Land Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Framework

NEPAD 2010b: Finalising the CAADP Pillar 1 Framework On Sustainable Land and Water Management (SLWM)

Information note for stakeholders NEPAD Briefs. Ng’endo M. 2011. Analysis of policy and institutional incentives and disincentives on conservations agriculture

with trees in Kenya. A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for a Master Degree in Environmental Science of Kenyatta University. November 2011

Oduro K and Bosu P. 2012. Ghana CAWT Policy and Institutional Analysis. Paper presented at the CAWT End-of-

Project Workshop. Arusha Tanzania. 9th – 11th May. 2012 Pretty, J. et al., 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal

of Agricultural Sustainability 8(4): 219-236. Rockstrom, J., Kaumbutho, P., Mwalley,J., Nzabi, A.W.M., Temesgen, M.L., Mawenya,L., Barron, J., Mutua,J.,

Damgaard-Larsen, S. (2009) Conservation farming strategies in East and Southern Africa: Yields and rain water productivity from on-farm action research. Soil and Tillage Research 103: 23–32

Rockström J. and J. Pasztor. 2012. Summary of the High-level dialogue on Global Sustainability. From: Rio+20: The

Future We Choose. Declaration from the High-level Dialogue on Global Sustainability. 17 June 2012, Rio de Janeiro.

Shula R.K. 2012: Policies and Institutional Arrangements Relevant to Conservation Agriculture with Trees in

Zambia Consultant: Africa Conservation Tillage Trust. Lusaka Zambia.


Shetto R. 2012: Policy analysis and institutional arrangements on Conservation Agriculture with Trees in Tanzania.

A CAWT Project Report. 2012. ICRAF Kenya. Shideed K.H., 2011 Informing Policy Development for Sustainable and Productive Food Production Systems in Dry

Areas. Paper presented at the 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture and The 3rd Farming Systems Design Conference, 26-29 Sep 2011. Brisbane, Australia.

www.poverty-wellbeing.net The platform on livelihoods, equity and empowerment. Briefing Notes on Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD), World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF)

MOA(K) 2010. Ministry of Agriculture (Kenya) 2010. Proceedings of the Stakeholders workshop on conservation

agriculture. Milimani Resort. Kisumu. 16th – 18th June, 2010. MOA (K). 2009. The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2009-2010. Ministry of Agriculture. Kenya.

http://www.poverty-wellbeing.net/


Appendix 1: Regional Economic Communities Alignment

ECCAS: Econ Community for

Central African States

Dark Blue: ECCAS Only

Lighter Blue: ECCAS & CEMAC

Arab Maghreb

Union

Community of Sahel-

Saharan States (CEN-SAD)

Darker: Founders

Lighter: Joined Later

African Union

COMESA

Dark Green: Current Members

Light Green: Former Members


Southern African Development Community (SADC) – Headquarters Gaborone Botswana: The origins of SADC lie in the 1960s and 1970s, when the leaders of majority-ruled countries and national liberation movements coordinated their political, diplomatic and military struggles to bring an end to colonial and white-minority rule in southern Africa. The immediate forerunner of the political and security cooperation leg of today's SADC was the informal Frontline States (FLS) grouping. It was formed in 1980. The Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) was the forerunner of the socio-economic cooperation leg of today's SADC. The adoption by nine majority-ruled southern African countries of the Lusaka declaration on 1 April 1980 paved the way for the formal establishment of SADCC in April 1980. Membership of the FLS and SADCC sometimes differed. SADCC was transformed into SADC on 17 August 1992, with the adoption by the founding members of SADCC and newly independent Namibia of the Windhoek declaration and treaty establishing SADC. The 1992 SADC provided for both socio-economic cooperation and political and security cooperation. In reality, the FLS was dissolved only in 1994, after South Africa's first democratic elections. Subsequent efforts to place political and security cooperation on a firm institutional footing under SADC's umbrella failed. On 14 August 2001, the 1992 SADC treaty was amended. The amendment heralded the overhaul of the structures, policies and procedures of SADC, a process which is ongoing. One of the changes is that political and security cooperation is institutionalised in the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security (OPDS). One of the principal SADC bodies, is subject to the oversight of the organisation's supreme body, the Summit, which comprises the heads of state or government. In 2008, the SADC agreed to establish a free trade zone with the East African Community (EAC) and the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) including all members of each of the organizations. Since 2000 began the formation of the SADC Free trade area with the participation of the SACU countries (South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and Swaziland). Next to join were Mauritius, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar. In 2008 joined Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia bringing the total number of SADC FTA members to 12. Angola, DR Congo and Seychelles are not yet participating. One significant challenge is that member states also participate in other regional economic cooperation schemes and regional political and security cooperation schemes that may compete with or undermine SADC's aims. For example, South Africa and Botswana both belong to the Southern Africa Customs Union, Zambia is a part of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, and Tanzania is a member of the East African Community. Common Market for Easter and Southern Africa (COMESA): - Headquartered in Lusaka Zambia The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, is a free trade area with twenty member states stretching from Libya to Zimbabwe. COMESA formed in December 1994, replacing a Preferential Trade Area which had existed since 1981. Nine of the member states formed a free trade area in 2000


(Djibouti, Egypt, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe), with Rwanda and Burundi joining the FTA in 2004 and the Comoros and Libya in 2006. COMESA is one of the pillars of the African Economic Community. In 2008, COMESA agreed to an expanded free-trade zone including members of two other African trade blocs, the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS): headquartered in Abuja Nigeria The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is a regional group of fifteen West African countries. Founded on 28 May 1975, with the signing of the Treaty of Lagos, its mission is to promote economic integration across the region. Considered one of the pillars of the African Economic Community, the organization was founded in order to achieve "collective self-sufficiency" for its member states by creating a single large trading bloc through an economic and trading union. It also serves as a peacekeeping force in the region. The organization operates officially in three co-equal languages—English, French, and Portuguese. The ECOWAS consists of two institutions to implement policies, the ECOWAS Secretariat and the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development, formerly known as the Fund for Cooperation until it was renamed in 2001. A few members of the organization have come and gone over the years. In 1976 Cape Verde joined ECOWAS, and in December 2000 Mauritania withdrew, having announced its intention to do so in December 1999 East African Community (EAC): - Headquartered in Arusha Tanzania The East African Community (EAC) is an intergovernmental organization comprising five countries in East Africa: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Pierre Nkurunziza, the President of the Republic of Burundi, is the EAC's current Chairman. The organization was originally founded in 1967, collapsed in 1977, and was officially revived on July 7, 2000. In 2008, after negotiations with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the EAC agreed to an expanded free trade area including the member states of all three. The EAC is an integral part of the African Economic Community. The East African Community is a potential precursor to the establishment of the East African Federation, a proposed federation of its five members into a single state. In 2010, the EAC launched its own common market for goods, labour and capital within the region, with the goal of a common currency by 2012 and full political federation in 2015. The geographical region encompassed by the EAC covers an area of 1.8 million square kilometres, with a combined population of about 132 million (July 2009 est.)


Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) - Headquartered in Libreville The Customs and Economic Union of Central Africa (or UDEAC from its name in French, in Portuguese: UAEAC), established by the Brazzaville Treaty in 1966, formed a customs union with free trade area between members and a common external tariff for imports from other countries. UDEAC signed a treaty for the establishment of an Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) to promote the entire process of sub-regional integration through the forming of monetary union with the Central Africa CFA franc as a common currency; it was officially superseded by CEMAC in June 1999 (through agreement from 1994). To date, CEMAC has not achieved its objective of creating a customs union.

At a summit meeting in December 1981, the leaders of the UDEAC agreed in principle to form a wider economic community of Central African states. ECCAS was established on 18 October 1983 by the UDEAC members, São Tomé and Príncipe and the members of the Economic Community of the Great Lakes States (CEPGL established in 1976 by the DR Congo, Burundi and Rwanda). Angola remained an observer until 1999, when it became a full member. Inter-Governmental Authority on Development of East Africa (IGAD): - Headquartered in Djibouti Recurring and severe droughts and other natural disasters between 1974 and 1984 caused widespread famine, ecological degradation and economic hardship in the Horn of Africa region. Although individual countries took substantial measures to cope with the problems and received support from the international community, its extent argued strongly for a regional approach to supplement national efforts. The six countries of the region took action through the United Nations to establish an intergovernmental body for development and drought control in their region. At a January 1986 assembly of heads of state and government, an agreement was signed which officially launched the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD). Soon after its formation the mandate of IGADD widened, becoming a vehicle for regional security and political dialogue. At an Extraordinary Summit of IGADD Heads of State and Government held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 18 April 1995, leaders met and resolved to revitalize the Authority by expanding its areas of regional co-operation. This would create a full-fledged regional political, economic, development, trade and security entity similar to the South African Development Community (SADC) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). One of the major motivations for the revitalization of IGADD was the existence of many organizational and structural problems that made the implementation of its goals and principles ineffective. On 21 March 1996, the Heads of State and Government at the Second Extraordinary Summit in Nairobi, Kenya approved and adopted an Agreement Establishing the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD): - Headquartered in Libya CEN-SAD was established in February 1998 by six countries, but since then its membership has grown to 28. One of its main goals is to achieve economic unity through the implementation of the free movement of people and goods in order to make the area occupied by member states a free trade area. At the international level, CEN-SAD gained observer status at the UN General Assembly in 2001 and concluded association and cooperation accords with the United Nations Economic


Commission for Africa (ECA) and with UN specialized agencies and institutions such as UNDP, WHO, UNESCO, FAO, and the Permanent Interstate Committee for drought control in the Sahel. All CEN-SAD member countries are also participating in other African economic unions, that have the aim to create a common African Economic Community. The envisioned Free Trade Area of CEN-SAD would be hard to practically implement, because it is overlapping with the envisioned customs unions of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), ECCAS and COMESA and other trade blocs more advanced in their integration. The Arab Maghreb Union (UMA): - Headquarters in Morocco. The Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) (Arabic: UMA) is a trade agreement aiming for economic and some sort of future political unity in North Africa between the Arab countries Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.The union is inactive and frozen due to deep political and economic disagreements between Morocco and Algeria regarding, among others, the issue of Western Sahara. New Partnerships for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is an economic development program of the African Union. NEPAD was adopted at the 37th session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government in July 2001 in Lusaka, Zambia. NEPAD aims to provide an overarching vision and policy framework for accelerating economic co-operation and integration among African countries. NEPAD is a merger of two plans for the economic regeneration of Africa: the Millennium Partnership for the African Recovery Programme (MAP), led by Former President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa in conjunction with Former President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria; and the OMEGA Plan for Africa developed by President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal. At a summit in Sirte, Libya, March 2001, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) agreed that the MAP and OMEGA Plans should be merged. The UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) developed a "Compact for Africa’s Recovery" based on both these plans and on resolutions on Africa adopted by the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000, and submitted a merged document to the Conference of African Ministers of Finance and Ministers of Development and Planning in Algiers, May 2001. In July 2001, the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, adopted this document under the name of the New African Initiative (NAI). The leaders of G8 countries endorsed the plan on July 20, 2001; and other international development partners, including the European Union, China, and Japan also made public statements indicating their support for the program. The Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) for the project finalized the policy framework and named it the New Partnership for Africa's Development on 23 October 2001. NEPAD is now a program of the African Union (AU) that has replaced the OAU in 2002, though it has its own secretariat based in South Africa to coordinate and implement its programmes. NEPAD’s four primary objectives are:

to eradicate poverty,


promote sustainable growth and development,

integrate Africa in the world economy, and

accelerate the empowerment of women. It is based on underlying principles of a commitment to good governance, democracy, human rights and conflict resolution; and the recognition that maintenance of these standards is fundamental to the creation of an environment conducive to investment and long-term economic growth. NEPAD seeks to attract increased investment, capital flows and funding, providing an African-owned framework for development as the foundation for partnership at regional and international levels. In July 2002, the Durban AU summit supplemented NEPAD with a Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. According to the Declaration, states participating in NEPAD ‘believe in just, honest, transparent, accountable and participatory government and probity in public life’. Accordingly, they ‘undertake to work with renewed determination to enforce’, among other things, the rule of law; the equality of all citizens before the law; individual and collective freedoms; the right to participate in free, credible and democratic political processes; and adherence to the separation of powers, including protection for the independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of parliaments. The Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance also committed participating states to establish an African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) to promote adherence to and fulfillment of its commitments. The Durban summit adopted a document setting out the stages of peer review and the principles by which the APRM should operate; further core documents were adopted at a meeting in Abuja in March 2003, including a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by governments wishing to undertake the peer review. Country Compact and Signing Status: CAADP country round tables bring together key players to assess the realities of National situations and develop road maps for going forward. This process leads to the identification of priority areas for investment through a ‘CAADP Compact’ agreement that is signed by all key partners. Following are key documents that are related to the CAADP round tables process. Those completed todate include the stocktaking reports, signed compacts and the investment plans for the following countries (Source: CAADP Website): Ethiopia - Signed Compact, Stocktaking Document, Post Compact Roadmap Rwanda - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents, Background Documents Liberia - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents, Technical Review Reports Sierra Leone - Signed Compact, Stocktaking Documents, Technical Review Reports Ghana - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents, Technical Review Reports Mali - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents


Niger - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents Togo - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents Burundi - Signed Compact, Stocktaking Document Nigeria - Signed Compact, Technical Review Reports Cape Verde - Signed Compact Burkina Faso - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents Benin - Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents, Post Compact Preliminary Comments Senegal - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents Gambia - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents, Technical Review Reports, Post Compact Preliminary Comments Cote d'Ivoire - Signed Compact Uganda - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents Swaziland - Draft Compact Malawi - Signed Compact, Investment Plans Tanzania - Signed Compact, Investment Plans, Stocktaking Documents, Post Compact Road Map Kenya - Signed Compact, Investment Plans DRC - Stocktaking Documents, Draft Compact Guinea Bissau - Signed Compact Central African Republic - Unsigned Compact Seychelles - Signed Compact Mauritania - Draft Compact Zambia - Unsigned Compact


Appendix 2: Africa: A continent Contrasts

Africa is a continent of high variability in terms of topography, soils, rainfall,

culture and also governance. If there is a continent where “One Size Does Not

Fit All”, it is in Africa. The Spread of CAWT and other practices is bound to be

slow, despite the efforts of the African Union that has seen the growth of

Regional Economic Communities and her CAADP initiative to help grow a

complex and segregated continent.


Appendix 3: Terms of Reference for the Study:

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE WITH TREES (CAWT): SCALING-UP THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REGIONAL POLICY STUDY ANALYSIS ON CONSERVATON AGRICULTURE

1.0 Background Information: Land degradation, erosion, drought and climate change have caused agricultural yields in parts of Africa to fall by up to 50 per cent. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the continent is thus inevitable. The World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) and the Africa Conservation Tillage Network (ACT), with funding from Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) have partnered to implement an initiative called Conservation Agriculture with Trees (CAWT). The overall goal of CAWT is to promote a continental wide adoption of conservation agriculture and agroforestry to sustain the productive potential of the natural resource base, improve incomes, foods security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in sub Saharan Africa. The main focus of this project is to generate the knowledge base required to initiate a mechanism for establishing a robust regional platform that will spearhead the uptake of CAWT for a successful evergreen agriculture revolution. The project will work in Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia and aims to generate three major outputs, namely: (i) The extent of adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers identified and documented, and the institutional and organizational infrastructure to support up-scaling mapped and analyzed, (ii) Policy and institutional factors promoting or hindering large scale adoption of conservation agriculture identified, quantified and documented and (iii) A regional facilitation mechanism for scaling up agroforestry based conservation agriculture identified. The project will be implemented by a team (PIT) drawn from staff of ICRAF, ACT and focal institutions in target countries. The PIT will receive expert advice and feedback on the project direction, policies and services from a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) drawn from the leadership of the two institutions and experts from other institutions.

2.0 THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT: The purpose of the policy study shall be to benchmark the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) processes in articulation of conservation agriculture related issues. Findings from the study will provide the CAWT implementation team with information and guidance on how best to promote the scaling up of conservation agriculture with trees technologies within Eastern, Southern and Western African regions.

Under the overall supervision of the ICRAF East Africa coordinator and in close and direct technical supervision by the Conservation agriculture with tree project coordinator the consultant will undertake a policy desk study on issues related to regional promotion of conservation agriculture in the context operation of the regional economic communities (RECs)


Specifically the consultant will be charged to undertake the following tasks and responsibilities:-

Review of the existing institutional / policy factors and how they impede or facilitate scaling up of conservation agriculture with trees (agro forestry based conservation agriculture) within RECs frameworks in Eastern, southern and western African regions

Identification of the major existing regional agricultural development initiatives within RECs that could integrate Conservation Agriculture with trees (agro forestry CA focused intervention).

Identification of successful or promising institutional and policy mechanisms within RECs that exist to facilitate wide spread adoption of conservation agriculture in eastern, southern and western regions

Analyse the nature and extent of constraints and limitations of the identified policies in pursuing medium and long term targets set forth for realization and promotion of conservation agriculture technologies within the eastern, southern and western regions;

Prepare policy direction and strategies for the CAWT project implementation team on how best Conservation Agriculture with Trees Programmes can be integrated and implemented within RECs priority areas

Identify opportunities in view of investment contribution to be brought as a result of promotion of conservation agriculture with trees in the region

Identify the areas of needs of capacity building and capacity utilization in the RECs set up as well as in the private and public sector in view of strengthening specific regional capacity for informed negotiation and policy making process

Identify the mechanism for tracking, measuring and evaluating implementation of stipulated policy in order to achieve targeted level of growth of agricultural investment, development of capacity of public and private institutions, and strengthened integration between agriculture and other development sectors

Present the consultancy findings to the CAWT stakeholder’s end of project workshop to be held in Arusha-Tanzania on 18-19th April 2012.

Perform any other relevant tasks/duties as assigned by the CAWT project implementing team

3.0 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Being a desk study, the consultant will be required to gather data and information from secondary sources with minimum consultation with stakeholder in the field of agriculture and natural resources. Analysis based on secondary information related to existing policies in east, south and western African region will identify gaps in different policies, identify strategies for most important agriculture and other rural development sectors.

4.0 RESOURCE PERSONS FOR THE STUDY : Resource person for the study will be identified and recruited by World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in collaboration with African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT)


5.0 PERIOD OF ASSIGNMENT:

The contract period is from 14th February to 13th April 2012 on when actually working basis. The Consultant is expected to complete the assignment and have final report delivered by 15th April 2012 and ultimate presentation on the CAWT stakeholder end of project workshop on 18th to 19th April 2012 in Arusha, Tanzania.

6.0 DELIVERABLES (OUTPUT): Policy and institutional factors promoting or hindering large scale adoption of agro forestry

based conservation agriculture with RECs set up identified, quantified and documented.

Identify and make proposals of different options for effective scaling up of CAWT in Eastern, southern and Western African regions;

Presentation of the final report to the CAWT stakeholder’s end of project workshop with clear recommendation on how best to mainstream CA policies in RECs in eastern, southern and western African regions

A framework for a comprehensive agricultural policy as exercised by regional players in agriculture and rural development sector

7.0 NATURE OF THE CONTRACT: This will be a short term contract to be undertaken within and outside the ICRAF Nairobi office. ICRAF and ACT will provide the Consultant with all necessary support to enable undertake the work satisfactorily. The consultant will be expected to work within the stipulated duration and finalize the policy analysis in areas of conservation with trees (CAWT).

8.0 EVALUATION METHOD: Assigning the Consulting firm and evaluating the performance is the responsibility of African Conservation Tillage Network. ACT will conclude a contract and evaluate performance of the Consultant firm on the basis of agreed upon terms of reference.

9.0 TIME TABLE: Confirming and signing of contract by 13th February 2012

Payment: At completion of assignment.

Welcome to ACT- Conservation Agriculture - Benchmarking ......up agroforestry based conservation...

Documents

Transcript of Welcome to ACT- Conservation Agriculture - Benchmarking ......up agroforestry based conservation...