Findings for assessing demand and supply of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture

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
AVRDC
ICIPE
IARC
BMZ
NARS Universities Private sector other
Demandfor
innovations
Supplyof
innovations
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

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

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 (%)
Face-to-face
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.
Media
Radio 47 52 41
TV 35 23 31
Internet 30 18 45
Mobile phone applications 21 14 7
DVD 8 19 15
Written
material
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
Opinion
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
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
Intermediaries
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
Private
Sector
„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

Findings for assessing demand and supply of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a Findings for assessing demand and supply of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture

Semelhante a Findings for assessing demand and supply of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture (20)

Mais de ICARDA

Mais de ICARDA (20)

Último

Último (20)

Findings for assessing demand and supply of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture