theme – 5 findings for the assessment of demand and supply of technologies for mitigation and...

FINDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND AND

SUPPLY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MITIGATION AND

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society

Authors: Tom Apina¹Si Bennasseur Alaoui, Ph.D², Lennart Woltering³, Lorenz Bachmann

Phd³,Jean Nyemba, Brigid Letty

International Workshop on “Applied Mathematics and Omics Technologies for Discovering Biodiversity and Genetic Resources for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation to Sustain Agriculture in Drylands” Rabat - Morocco, 24-27 June 2014

OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION – SUSTAINET EA

ITAACC PROGRAMME

COMPONENTS

ASSESSMENT – COMPONENT B

Objectives

METHODOLOGY

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

DEMAND AND SUPPLY – CROPS,LIVESTOCK

EXAMPLES OF MATCHES

CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATIONS


INTRODUCTION


•Non- governmental organization promoting sustainable agricultural practices in East and Horns of Africa. •We serve a network of 1.5M smallholder farmers either directly or through more than 200 CBO/NGOs who are our members.

ABOUT ITAACC

The The “Innovation Transfer into Agriculture

– Adaptation to Climate Change (ITAACC)”-

program is being implemented by the

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of

BMZ (04/2013-03/2018).

It aims at bridging the gap between

innovations developed at CGIAR, ICIPE and

AVRDC) and their implementation on the

ground by farmers and actors representing

farmers

4


27.06.2014

COMPONENTS Success factors – Project

Components

Assessment of Demand and Supply

of agricultural innovation

Financing projects

up to 2 Mio € in

total

Business, NGOs,

GIZ, Donors, et al.

IARC

All Actors /

Partners

Lessons learnt

Knowledge

transfer

platform A

B

D C


STUDY OBJECTIVE

Development and application of a method to

assess the demand-supply match for

agricultural innovations in Africa

7

Demand- expressed by farmer

organisations

Supply- by CGIAR, AVRDC and icipe


METHODOLOGY

Defining the needs for agricultural innovations of more than a billion farmers in Africa, all with their specific resource base and climate is impossible.

Similarly, the 17 IARC have produced an overwhelming amount of research findings since they started work in the 1960s thus it was critical from the onset to define the scope and limitations of the study.

The Concept

Other donors

ITAACC- Demand Supply match for agricultural innovations

Smallholder farmers

Farmer organisations

(aggregated demand)

GIZ

Agr.program

s

PPP

NGOs,

donors and

networks

Public

sector

Ext.

serv.

CGIAR

15 centers

CRPs AV

RD

C

ICIP

E

IARC

BMZ

NARS

Universities

Private sector

other

Dem

an

d f

or

in

nova

tion

s

Su

pp

ly o

f

in

nova

tion

s

Private

sector

VC

actors

9

SCOPE – COUNTRY SELECTION - 17 countries were selected based

on presence IARC center and BMZ

funded projects (GIZ/BEAF)

10


East Africa Southern Africa West Africa North Africa

Kenya South Africa Cameroon Morocco

Ethiopia Zimbabwe Mali Tunisia

Uganda Zambia Benin

Tanzania Mozambique Ghana

Rwanda Malawi Burkina Faso

Niger

COMMODITY SELECTION

Targeted major commodities in crop, livestock

and (agro)forestry sector (FAOStat) per Agro-

Ecological Zone (AEZ) to increase relevance of

findings between regions

METHODOLOGY: DATA COLLECTION

12

Sample Questions Responses

FO 152 75 11.400

GIZ/NGO 141 53 7.473

Strategic IARC 24 34 816

Scientists 94 50 4.700

Sum 411 212 24.389


METHODOLOGY-

WORKSHOPS

ITAACC- Demand Supply match for agricultural innovations 13

Southern Africa, February

2014- 30 participants

West and North Africa,

March 2014- 36

participants

International, Feldafing,

November 2013- 50

participants

International, Nairobi,

May 2014- 75

participants

http://www.icipe.org/itaacc

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Main research theme Hypothesis

Needs for innovations H01. IARCs are addressing key needs of farmers

Adoption of innovations

H02. Innovations are affordable for farmers

H03. Farmers and scientists share similar views on key criteria for design/adoption of

innovations

H04. Gender equity is an important criteria for actors in the innovation system

H05. Farmers are the major stakeholder in the design and implementation of IARCs’ research

Information exchange H06. The ways information on innovations is shared matches the requirements of farmers

Extension

H07. Farmers rate advisory services they receive as adequate

H08. Effective linkages exist between different actors in the innovation system

H09. IARCS innovations have been up-scaled adequately

Climate change H10. Climate change is having an impact on smallholder farming systems and actors are

successfully adapting the production systems to the changes

Other

H11. Research results financed by BMZ in the past are found readily among current top five

innovations of IARCs

H12. Research at the IARC is aligned with overall international development goals Sustainable Agriculture for Healthy Environment and Food Secure Society

CROPS: DEMAND AND SUPPLY

15

CROPS FO # Interm. # IARC #

Maize 41 40 17

Cassava 10 19 6

Potato 10 12 3

Rice 9 10 3

Sorghum 8 13 8

Beans dry 8 6 7

Groundnuts 8 5 7

Banana/plantain 8 7 4

Onion 7 9 3

Cowpea 6 3 9

Tomatoes 6 11 5

Soybean 5 7 9

Cabbages 5 11 3

Millet 4 5 6

Sweet potato 2 8 3

Taro and yams 1 2 3

Pulses 2 2 8

Wheat, barley and teff 7 14 14

Other vegetables 11 5 4

Other specify 25 24 15

• Maize was the most

frequently mentioned

crop – with more spread

in terms of crop options

among IARCs -


LIVESTOCK, TREES AND OTHER

16

LIVESTOCK FO # Interm. # IARC #

Cattle 16 17 11

Dairy cattle 13 15 4

Goats 8 12 6

Sheep 7 10 3

Poultry 6 16 2

Dairy goats 2 4 0

Pigs 2 1 2

Rabbits 1 1 0

Camel 0 4 1

Fish in natural

waters 0 1 2

Aquaculture 0 0 2

Other specify 8 3 7

TREES AND

OTHER FO # Interm. #

IARC

#

Mango 8 3 3

Moringa 3 4 2

Fodder crops 3 na na

Olive 2 6 1

Cashew nut 2 1

Citrus 1 1 1

Pawpaw 1 1

Leucaena 1 2

Pigeon pea 2 1

Grevellia 1 1

Gliricidia sepium 4

Neem 1 1

Faidherbia albida 4

Shea butter 1 1

Other specify 18 17 13


MAIZE: PROBLEM CODING

17

Maize challenges FO% Interm. % IARC %

Access to and quality of seed 16% 14% 5%

Marketing 10% 8% 5%

Access to credit or finance / high production costs 9% 5% 5%

Post harvest processing or storage 8% 8% 5%

Tools, machinery and irrigation equipment 8% 3% 2%

Drought, flood, any climate related problem 6% 8% 5%

Institutional / regulatory / policy issues 6% 12% 2%

Pest and diseases (including rodents, animals) 5% 6% 14%

Access to, quality and use of fertilizer 4% 3% 5%

Land and water availability, natural resources 4% 4% 2%

Cultivation practices and harvesting 2% 3% 7%

Poor soil fertility 1% 3% 10%

Low yields and poor quality 1% 3% 14%

Pest and diseases are a very big issue in East Africa (MLN) but not so much in other regions

Few maize varieties are drought resistant- farmers shif to more drought resistant crops (sorghum, millet, cassava, sweet potato, etc.)

Food aid and input support programs lead to production and market distortions


MATCHING CASES Seeds for needs

Bioversity International,

promoted in East Africa

Crops: barley, durum wheat

sorghum, cowpea, pigeon pea

and common beans.

Access to

seed

Adapted seed

for various

farming

conditions

Drought

resistance

Good yield

with low

inputs

Crowd sourcing involves

thousands of farmers in seed

testing. Old varieties of gene

banks are taken back to

farmers’ fields and compared

with few modern varieties.

Farmers test several varieties

and retain the best mix of

varieties. The testing takes

place in farmer fields on

hundreds of locations. The

concept is based on seed

sharing. Thus, the approach

depends less on a formal

seed sector to multiply seed.

Research is

still ongoing

on various

issues.

Seed

exchange

across

country

borders?

Further

scaling-up

after

research?

22

A


SUPPLY OF INNOVATIONS


0% 10% 20% 30%

Development of improved varieties

Development of technology (not varieties)

Cultivation methods (CA, agroforestry,…

Promotion of using specific crop/variety

Information tools/equipment (analysis)

Improve policies/institutions

Value addition (processing, storage)

pest and disease management

Improved service to farmers

Access to inputs and markets

Knowledge systems

Innovation platforms and PPP


CHARACTERISING INNOVATIONS

24

Where are your FO members located / Which AEZ does your

innovation target?

Agro-ecological zone

Farmer orgs

%

Intermediarie

s %

IARCs

%

Arid 10% 11% 1%

Semi arid 36% 37% 61%

Sub humid 40% 42% 31%

Humid 14% 10% 7%

• Major agro ecological zones are rather well covered

• More marginal zones (arid areas) are less well covered


CHARACTERISING INNOVATIONS

Yield of IARC innovation in relation to major existing

technology in the country

Category Percentage

Significantly lower (-30%) 0%

Lower (-15%) 1%

Equal (+- 5%) 13%

Higher (+15%) 42%

Much higher (+30%) 37%

No information 8%

25

• The largest proportion of innovations (42%) were said to produce a

moderate yield increase (+ 15%)

• About a third of innovations were said to produce larger yield

increases (>=30%)

• 13% of innovations do not have yield advantage

– for 8% of innovations there was no information on yield levels

available.


AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR ADOPTION

OF INNOVATION BY BENEFICIARIES (EURO) Caution on this data is

required.

Few crop innovations (14%) are very cheap

11-28% of innovations are in the range of 50-100 Euro.

32-45% of innovations require more than 100 Euro. For these, adoption without credit or subsidies appears difficult

More social organization solutions will be required: sharing arrangements, cooperatives, micro credits, etc.

26

Investment

range -

Euro

Crops

#

Livestock

#

Trees and

others

#

<10 8 5 4

10-50 17 4 2

51-100 6 5 3

101-400 12 5 4

201- 400 6 2 2

>401 9 3 4

No info. 16 4 1

Total 61 25 18


AFFORDABILITY OF INNOVATIONS

Very resource poor

Well resourced

Resource status

Farmer

needs

Innovation

supply

No. of suitable

innovations

Only about 1/3 of the

top innovations

appear to be

affordable for very

resource poor

farmers


CONCLUSIONS H1: IARCS ARE ADDRESSING

KEY NEEDS OF FARMERS

Hypothesis 1 is partially confirmed

About one third of innovations are highly affordable. Others would require projects or subsidies

Access to innovations is very limited (via NARS)

Some problems are outside the mandate of centers

Some problems require regular extension support

Some require Government intervention (e.g. quality control of seed marketed)

Most innovations need to be made more accessible to farmers.

28


INFORMATION EXCHANGE (H6)


Means of dissemination FO (%) Intermed. (%) IARC (%)

Fac

e-to

-fac

e

Farmer training 86 83 74

Demonstrations 78 80 76

Farmers days / field days 73 77 66

Farmer to farmer exchanges 61 66 52

Farmer leaders 56 n.a. n.a.

Farmer to farmer 25 n.a. n.a.

Med

ia

Radio 47 52 41

TV 35 23 31

Internet 30 18 45

Mobile phone applications 21 14 7

DVD 8 19 15

Writ

ten

mat

eria

l

Farmer leaflets / handouts 46 55 48

Publications in local language 33 28 45

Magazines / newspapers 31 23 34

Research Journals n.a. 12 59

Manuals n.a. 42 52

n= 1000 824 632

Facilitated face-to-face

interactions are

popular but costly

Scientist

skeptical of use

of apps

How should innovations

be promoted to farmers?

How do you

promote your

innovation

Farmer illiteracy

poses a challenge

QUALITY OF SERVICES FROM….

30

NGO NAES NARS

Private

sector

Op

inio

n

of.

.. FO good neutral Very poor

Intermed. neutral neutral good

-Quality of services generally good, but you must be lucky to get support in

your location, or for sufficient time

-Capacity building is appreciated

-Balance support vs dependency

-Poor coordination among NGOs (duplications). Lack of resources/logistics to provide services to farmers.

Knowledgeable about staple crops, not on cash crops.


OPINIONS ON SERVICES OF PRIVATE

SECTOR

Mostly on input suppliers, seed companies

FO rate service „very poor“, itermed. „Good“.


„They are only there for their own

benefit, they don‘t help the farmers“

Farmers Union Mozambique

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Exploiting farmers

Inaccessible/ poor presence

Single product focus only

Quality of services high

Quality of services low FO Interm.

Ignoring farming system reality may result in

conflicting messages of different actors

Big mistrust due to bad experience with

seed adultration, market monopolies, fake

inputs, etc.

good after-sale services are mentioned. Good

extension and training capacities, but don‘t

use that enough yet

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF IARC

ACCORDING TO…

ITA

ACC

-

Dem

and

Sup

ply

mat

ch

for

agri

cult

ural

inno

vati

ons

32

Strength Weakness

FO

25% approach

19% training

13% professional

32% approach does not meets farmer

needs

14% poor/no funding to Fos

14% poor facilitator of partnerships

Inte

rmed

iari

es 17% technologies

13% professional

10% approach

10% sharing

9% networking

24% poorly accessible

19% approach does not meet farmer

needs

16% Poor partner (no mutual respect-

and poor feedback on collected data)

„IARC have entry points to

international knowledge/

experience, but I am not getting

connected“

„focus on research methodology rather than

impact“, or „focus on donor need, rather than

farmer need“


IARC, RATE YOUR COLLABORATION

WITH…..

33

NARS NAES NGO PS

Very poor - - 0% 13% 5% 4%

Poor - 9% 17% 5% 13%

Medium 30% 26% 41% 43%

Good + 26% 26% 36% 30%

Very good + + 35% 17% 14% 9%

Total (n=) 23 23 22 23


IARC COLLABORATION WITH NGO AND

PS

34

“They are slowly understanding that

research can benefit them, and PS can

quickly upscale

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Good partner

Poor partner

Lack adequate resources

Approach meets farmer needs

High quality standards/ competent

Approach does not meet farmer needs

Poor quality standards and…

Hardly any cooperation

NGO

PrivateSector

„They take research result out

of context and dont feedback

findings/observations to

research. “

„ NGOs don’t have flexible

budgets, making it difficult to

collaborate“


HYPOTHESIS 8- CONCLUSION

H8: Effective linkages exist between different

actors in the innovation system

No, there is a lot of room for improvement.

The approach of IARC towards working with farmers

is more often seen as a weakness than a strength

Actors very negative about NAES, generally positive

about NGOs and NARS (despite lack of resources)

and IARC are getting used to working with private

sector

Farmers mistrust private sector

35


UPSCALING OF IARC INNOVATIONS

Only 22% of innovations have reached out to more than 50 000 farmers so far

For about 1/3 of top innovations, no data on adoption was available.

36

Adoption range

#households # %

0 .. 100 7 11%

101 .. 500 9 14%

501 .. 1000 8 13%

1001 .. 5000 13 20%

5001 .. 20000 9 14%

20001 .. 50000 4 6%

>50001 14 22%

Total 64

Missing answers 30

IARC major bottleneck to better uptake of innovations: •IARC poor approach to up-scaling and collaboration with farmers and partners, •poor design of innovations – more focus on scientific correctness than means of effectice delivery


UPSCALING OF IARC INNOVATIONS

37

Evaluation criteria of scientists Responses

Peer reviewed publications 91%

Acquisition of funds 70%

Quality of the scientific work delivered 65%

Perceived impact of the research 57%

Novelty of the research 44%

Engagement with other actors of the value chain 30%

Engagement with farmers 13%


CLIMATE CHANGE

Large majority observe increased incidences of droughts

and erratic rainfall

84-98% of respondents claim to have experienced

productivity loss due to climate change

Coping mechanisms:

38

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Improve water use (irrigation, water…

Improved cultivation practices…

Improving current variety

Diversification of production

Other (early warning, insurance,…

No coping strategy even though…

Planting trees (agro-forestry…FO


CONCLUSIONS

even though a large number of research

outputs match with the farmer needs, the

most important problems of farmers are not

met by research. This is access to good and

affordable inputs and services (seeds, planting

materials, advice, etc)

Most innovations focus on improving traits of

crop varieties. More innovations should aim at

improving the marketability of commodities

there is considerable room to improve trust,

understanding and true partnerships among

key actors in the innovation system

39


RECOMMENDATIONS

If IARC want to reach impact, poor access to inputs

and services needs to be tackled:

Research center are not single most important

driver for agric innovations

Urgent need to improve communication and

collaboration between all stakeholders!

ITAACC advocates for a shift from linear thinking

(research > extension > farmer) towards innovation

system thinking focus on on interaction between

diverse actors as key to changing agricultural

practices

Go beyond farmer participation towards farmer

leadership of innovation processes

40


RECOMMENDATIONS CONT..............

Pull through the CGIAR reforms but

don‘t expect that scientist become BBC

overnight (Bridge R&D, Broker of

partnerships and Catalyst for change)

Provoke centers to change rewarding

system

Motivate research centers to value

adaptive research more

41


RECOMMENDATIONS ON USE OF METHODOLOGY

Method is useful learning tool for broad range

of stakeholders and it can influence public

spending

Allows for „flagging“ of issues and a basis for

in-depth discussions

Shows value of needs assessment, but does not

replace needs assessments for

research/development projects

Due to scope of assessment it is probably most

valuable to validate functioning of the

innovation system every 5-10 years

42



STUDY TEAM

LORENZ LENNART TOM

BENNASSER JEAN BRIGID

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


THANK YOU

theme – 5 findings for the assessment of demand and supply of technologies for mitigation and...

Science

iarcs innovations

healthy environment

innovations h01

icipe sustainable agriculture

agriculture adaptation

innovations of iarcs

food secure society

demandsupply match